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)
Re:Eric should be more careful (Score:5, Insightful)
Similarly, rallying against anticompetitive bullies like SCO cannot be considered threatening. It is free speech. Now although all my senators and house members are owned by corporations, the justice system will find in favor of crusaders like me and Eric Scott Raymond.
Re:Eric should be more careful (Score:5, Insightful)
What scares me most is how, suddenly, the idea that we are somehow not allowed to speak out against just such corporations is becoming more and more common to the average Joe.
When did America become this country of limp wristed wussies who were afraid to speak their minds because they might be sued by some big corporation? Yeah, they might sue, and you might have to defend a lawsuit if what you speak is not the truth. What one must do to speak out on any given subject, including this one, is to educate oneself!
If you know more than the other guy and can only speak about the truth, what is there to fear?
Re:Eric should be more careful (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, how about:
Huge Legal Fees
Legal technicalities being used against you
The truth being inadmissable in court
Their lies being heard by the court as truth
There are many many things to fear. There is currently a man in Alabama speaking what he truly believes to be the truth. As of now his career is in jeopardy, he is being charged with breaking laws , and will likely lose his fight.
The biggest thing with the 10 commandments case in Alabama is that both sides believe they have the truth on their side. I can very easily see that McBride and co. think that the "truth" is on their side. In fact it would be required that they think this way, otherwise the label of "delusional" wouldn't be appropriate. And I belive that they truly are delusional about this case.
Re:Eric should be more careful (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Lucky American fools: you have free speech (Score:4, Informative)
Huh?
You're welcome to debate the merits of private and public health care in Canada. Write a letter to the editor. Hold a peaceful protest somewhere. Talk about it in a bar.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees explicitly "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;" (Section 2(b) of the Charter).
Mind, the Charter does contain restrictions and exceptions (Section 1 specifies "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.", and Section 33 aka the "Notwithstanding Clause".) The U.S. Supreme Court also recognizes that there are tolerable restrictions on free speech in the United States--that doesn't make the First Amendment moot.
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:Eric should be more careful (Score:5, Informative)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. You can't buy your way out of the first amendment.
Re:Eric should be more careful (Score:3, Funny)
I think the point with the guns was a bit off, (after all, I have access to the internet, I could download a copy of the anarchist's cookbook and make a bomb, that doesn't make me a terrorist).
No, using Linux is what makes you a terorist! :)
Re:... huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Then again, relative to parts of Europe (explicite genocide), Africa and Asia, our respect for the individual has limited our violence. (Native Americans died off pretty quickly here, but I don't think that it was the will of the majority. It is "our" fault anyway.) Forced annexation isn't violent, otherwise Indianapolis and Fort Wayne are in a
Re:Eric should be more careful (Score:5, Insightful)
We have no reason to think that this represents a threat of illegal action. He is just not showing your cards to try and get a response without anything concrete, like, oh let me think now, SCO.
I don't think there is anything in the letter that is illegal (IANAL), it is threatinging but cairfully worded. It is yet another call for SCO to play fair. It is strongly worded to try and get their attention. But then if you are on crack the only think that gets your attention is more crack.
Re:Eric should be more careful (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Eric should be more careful (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now we need strong language; we need people willing to put it on the line and kick business and government.
Re:Eric should be more careful (Score:4, Insightful)
I picked up some implied physical threats. But seeing as Eric's a gun aficionado, it's easy to see why. Hmm, deja vu.
Yes, the USA has come to quite a pass if actually believing in the Constitution means that you are a criminal. But the way things have been going, I would not be surprised. "Oh! He thinks we have the right to bear arms! That means he is going to kill me with his arsenal!"
For the record, I believe the second amendment gives us the right to own any weapon up to and including nuclear warheads, but I do not personally possess any unless perhaps you count the knives in my kitchen.
Re:Eric should be more careful (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, yes.
I disdain the entire concept that you should be cold and dispassionate when someone is calling you a liar and a thief. Right now, the only voice most businesses (and individuals) hear is SCO's; to change this, we have to shout louder.
SCO won't win in court and they know that, so they make a big fuss and call attention to themselves. That's fine--let's put attention on them by loudly announcing they (and not us) are the liars and thieves, that they have no case, that they are attempting this solely to pump and dump stock.
We need strong language.
Re:Eric should be more careful (Score:4, Insightful)
ESR has learned from SCO tactics. McBride & Company don't have to be honest, they are only press releases. They have only made simple breach of contract charges in court where things like lies are punishable.
ESR Turns SCO's Own Tactics Against Them (Score:4, Insightful)
It is an excellent rant though.
Re:Eric should be more careful (Score:3, Insightful)
The ones they should be taking away are the SCO executives who are clearly attempting to extort money from innocent Linux users and authors.
(and who modded up the parent troll?)
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.
Not a threat (Score:5, Informative)
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=barrat
Whereas ERS promising that if certain action is not stopped that SCO and McBride wil face legal consequences is a perfect legal statement to make in that it does not open OSI or ESR to any other liabilities..
as it stands Now any Linux User not charged by SCO Group has the right to ask the court to convict SCO group on Barratry charges..
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.
Re:Eric should be more careful (Score:3, Insightful)
That rant pushes the edge of legal. One could definitely consider some of those words to be threats. I just hope they don't come to take him away. He's needed right now.
The letter does not contain threats; it contains facts. If SCO does not back down they are going to be in a world of hurt, because they have opened themselves up to all kinds of legal attacks and being cut off technilogically. Their major products are or depend on Free Software to work. If they were sued by the authors of the Free Soft
Re:Eric should be more careful (Score:4, Funny)
He has definite, serious and well-thought-out plans afoot for SCO. However, he can't reveal them publicly or SCO will find ways to counter the plans. OTOH, if you want to find out what those plans are, you can sign an NDA and see bits and pieces of his plans so you'll know how cool and 31337 they are and how much SCO should really ph33r those plans.
Re:Eric should be more careful (Score:3, Funny)
What? his threat to shot McBride's "high horse" out from under him??? His threat that he "will not like" what we're cooking up for him? Analogies and references.
Sure! He threatened to kill Bill Gates! :)
Re:Eric should be more careful (Score:5, Insightful)
Very few people are. The Open Source exchange goes on around the world as much in spite of as because OSI. Any organization will ultimately be detrimental to two or more people working together WITHOUT supervision. No matter how good the intentions are, they will end up trying to impose undue influence and increase the noise-to-productivity ratio.
Whenever ANYTHING becomes popular, you'll find the organizers crawling out from the woodwork -- sometimes they were great contributers to the cause in the first place, and sometimes they weren't. Sometimes they're just besserwizzers who feel a call to "organize". However, they always tend to impose THEIR direction and add THEIR version of bureaucracy to something that doesn't need it in the first place.
I have full respect for Eric S. Raymond, but not as "President of OSI". That title, and all that goes with it, is just so much bovine faeces, and will only hurt open software in the long run. Like it does right now, when companies like SCO believes he has any mandate at all to speak for every programmer that work with open source, or has done so in the past. Let's hope that the courts don't make the same mistake.
If SCO has a beef with code I've written, I want them to come to ME. Not to OSI, not to Red Hat, not to EFF, and not to IBM. They don't speak for me. My code is between me and the people I shared it with, and these "leaders" don't rank any higher on that list than you do. Probably less, cause you may have time to use the code, and provide valuable feedback, instead of being bound up in "organizing".
If you want to be represented by Eric Raymond, John P. Barlow or anyone else, it's up to you. Just don't assume that they speak for everyone.
Get off my back, monkey -- I don't WANT to be organized or spoken for. Not by you, nor anyone else.
--
*Art
Re:Eric should be more careful (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a very strange reading of that article.
The key point of the article is that he is speaking against a particular killing of police officer. Raymond condemns the killer as a murderer. He's making this point in contrast with his view that it might be acceptable to kill a police officer in certain circumstances. Those aren't "fantasies," that's someone who is thinking about his own moral boundaries. It's not really fair to give a blanket label to an activity as wrong unless you've considered what you would do in every possible similar situation. Take something as straight forward as terrorism. Lots of people are eager to say the terrorism is never acceptable. However, if your home country was successfully invaded by a hostile power and your military defeated, would you be willing to strike back covertly to try and free your country? Similarly, if you're an American, do you believe that vandalism and property destruction for political purposes is never, ever acceptable? If so, do you object to the Boston Tea Party [pbs.org]? Even if you decided that all of these cases are wrong, the point is that you need to seriously think about them with you as the potential subject.
After discussing many of the possible cases in which he would shoot a law officer or military member, Raymond specifically notes "But the United States of America has not yet reached the point at which the political mechanisms for the defense of freedom have broken down. This judgment is not a matter of theory but one of practice. There are not yet police at our door with legal orders to round up the Jews, or confiscate pornography or computers or guns."
Raymond has clearly thought about these issues regarding violence against government. This isn't the paranoid rantings of madman, it's someone putting forth his ethics on the matter. He's clearly thought the matter through and decided where his lines are. I don't entirely agree with Raymond's positions, but his positions are well reasoned. The sense I get from the article is that this is someone who is very rational, someone who doesn't hide from uncomfortable ideas, someone I could understand.
SCO's in for a fight (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:SCO's in for a fight (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it's true that one could compose music, paint, sculpt, write a novel, make furniture, build a house, tend a garden, etc. But I wouldn't say those things are necessarily better.
More independent thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, in response to a prior claim that the copyright law prevents the GPL from allowing users to make multiple copies, I wrote:
There is an obvious flaw in that reasoning. It focusses on the the public, and not on the copyright holder. A copyright holder decides how a work is to be released, after all, and it is perfectly legal for a copyright holder to release something to the Public Domain, in which case everyone can make unlimited copies. So, the actual relevant fact is the copyright holder has the right to decide on any degree of release between public domain and not-at-all. Therefore, when the copyright holder releases something under the GPL, the copyright holder has decided to accept the GPL's details for a release. In such case the copyright holder is giving the public the right to make unlimited copies, which fact does NOT violate the copyright law.
Re:More independent thinking (Score:5, Informative)
Re:More independent thinking (Score:3, Insightful)
SCO's death knell is coming, yes, but not so soon that it's a good idea to short them willy-nilly. The price will just go down, then back up. Wait 'til the trial starts... that's when it'll go down and stay down
Re:More independent thinking (Score:3, Informative)
Basic stock trading lesson: When you short sell a stock, you essentially borrow the stock at its current price, with the understanding that at a particular time, you will buy it back at whatever price. If the stock goes down, you make money (because you borrowed at the higher valuation.) However, if the stock rises, then you have to buy it at the current valuation, and thus you lose money.
It's risky because if you do a regular trade, the most you can lose is what you p
Re:More independent thinking (Score:3, Informative)
Also, it's a call option that would provide some protection for the short seller. It guarantees a set purchase price that they can use in the event of a rapid rise in the stock they've shorted.
Re:More independent thinking (Score:3, Informative)
SCO stock is non marginable.
you can't sell it short.
Uh, wrong. It'a a $5/30% issue, which could be quite profitable to short at it's present (~$15/share) price. Be sure to have enough cash on hand to make sure you don't get caught by a short squeeze (and make sure you understand what a short squeeze is) before you try it. Do the math (fire up gnumeric or open office) and be sure you understand what will happen to your position under various conditions (like, what if it shoots up to $20 in a day? $25
Duplicate :-( (Score:4, Informative)
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.
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?
Already Happening... (Score:5, Insightful)
Que Red Hat
There is almost certainly no infringing code whatsoever. But, in the extraoridinarilly unlikely event (statistically indistinguishable from 0.0, I suspect) there is infringing code, it will be removed immediately upon revelation, and $CO will be able to collect on $0.00 damages, as they have done the exact opposite that the law requires (work to mitigate the damages), trying through deception and secrecy to maximize any damages. Which does not fly, even in these dismal times. Never has, probably never will, and certainly won't for SCO. Their hands are "dirty," the code they reference has already been declared public domain by a court of law in an earlier AT&T v. BSD case IIRC, and if not, comes from so many textbooks (including at least one that places no restrictions on reuse of the code) as to be common knowledge. Their "trade secrets" case is dead in the water, and they have no copyright case.
Red Hat has filed to force them to reveal the alleged code
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]
No (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Already Happening... (Score:4, Informative)
We have made fun of such claims, but we haven't seen the contracts.
Their complaint included a side letter amending the contract between IBM and AT&T/SCO/whoever, to the effect that IBM owns what IBM writes. SCO is DOA.
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.)
Re:Stronger spectra (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably because it would be good insurance for IBM if SCO did go after any of the end users. If SCO successfully starts collecting from end users, then SCO's case against IBM can't include an attempt at collecting damages. SCO can't collect damages twice, once from IBM and again from the users.
Re:Stronger spectra (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate to shatter your illusions, but IBM, like any profitable company, are interested in shareholder value, not karma. They are using and supporting open source because they see this approach as a good business model, not to usher in the age of aquarius. They won't provide legal support to linux users who are not their customers, because it will not increase shareholder value, either directly, or indirectly.
Re:Stronger spectra (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't like the word "karma", fine, "goodwill" then. And I am quite aware IBM feels this is a good business model. That's self-evident. And it will increase shareholder value if it eliminates the impression of a cloud hanging over one of IBM's primary business initiatives.
Friday August 23 2003 or Friday August 20 2003??? (Score:5, Insightful)
FWIW *my* calendar has 23 August 2003 as being a Saturday, and 20 August 2003 being a Wednesday.
***
That detail aside, I love this letter. Thank you, Mr Raymond. That was inspired.
I'm a little concerned about the side threat "As the president of OSI, defending the community of open-source hackers against predators and carpetbaggers is mine -- and if you don't stop trying to destroy Linux and everything else we've worked for I guarantee you won't like what our alliance is cooking up next." It worries me that Raymond would phrase things this way.
I suppose there are a lot of non-violent actions that he could mean: tens of thousands of small claims actions (an idea which I love), protesting, etc. But there are some illegal ones that could be inferred from his statement: DOS, DDOS, DRDOS, etc, that would cause quite a stir; after all, aren't the ones that SCO's going after (the Open Source Community) in possession of (and the authors of) "subversive" source code (in McBride's eyes) that could be used against him on the Internet if the Community deemed it necessary?
No, no, don't flame me; I'm merely trying to put McBride's way of "thinking" (if you can call it that) onto Raymond's letter.
I am sure Raymond meant nothing of sort; however, in McBride's state of dementia and loose grip on reality, I wonder what he will think.
I hope, if it's necessary, that IBM (or more likely the EFF) will be able to send in the lawyers on Raymond's behalf. But I hope even more that it won't be needed.
Re:Friday August 23 2003 or Friday August 20 2003? (Score:5, Funny)
Despite much FUD to the contrary, I don't believe DRDOS is illegal.
If my memory is correct, however, it is owned by SCO (or some parent/sibling company thereof), and should hence be boycotted.
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 so
Re:Friday August 23 2003 or Friday August 20 2003? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Friday August 23 2003 or Friday August 20 2003? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can you refer me to something that Eric has shot out of rage?
It's like characterizing all hackers as virus writing 18 year olds living in their parents basement. Most programmer, even with bad tempers don't write viruses; why should a gun nut with a bad temper be considered violent?
Joe
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: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!!!
I read this a couple of days ago... (Score:5, Insightful)
Eric only said what is on the mind of everyone in the free software/open source movement.
SCO is hitting below the belt, playing dirty ball against free software. It is about time someone vents their outrage.
To paraphrase McBride, the GPL is null and void, and those free/open source guys need to rethink their whole world view, or pay the consequences.
How can you not get upset in the face of such meglomania?
Re:I read this a couple of days ago... (Score:5, Insightful)
>Eric only said what is on the mind of everyone in the free software/open source movement.
Speak for yourself. I'd rather that he didn't speak for me, nor for Linus. I'm not minded to lower myself to SCO's level by making vague "Why I oughta..." threats. By making that threat, he's just given SCO more ammunition for their paranoid ravings. Nice one.
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:I read this a couple of days ago... (Score:3, Insightful)
If Raymond does not have Linus Torvalds' backing, this is free speech; he can speak up and say "I did not tell Eric Raymond to speak for me, and these are my real opinions." This i
Rant-a-liscious (Score:3, Insightful)
Take that offer while you still can, Mr. McBride. So far your so-called ?evidence? is crap; you'd better climb down off your high horse before we shoot that sucker entirely out from under you. How you finish the contract fight you picked with IBM is your problem. As the president of OSI, defending the community of open-source hackers against predators and carpetbaggers is mine ? and if you don't stop trying to destroy Linux and everything else we've worked for I guarantee you won't like what our alliance is cooking up next.
This guy is all over the place, from humor to near, on the fence, threats....but someone has to give McBride some "tough love" and tell it like it is, for his and everyones own good. Ideally this would suffice but I sincerely doubt it will get through the thick skulls over at SCO.
Hell of a read though.
Look out McBride! (Score:5, Funny)
- Eric S. Raymond
Woah... the last thing I'd want after me is a pissed-off hacker with an AK-47.
Re:Look out McBride! (Score:3, Funny)
After all , don't you need an imaginary gun to fight imaginary crimes? (like those claimed by Mr. McBrideOfSatan?)
Utah?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ouch!
Although this sort of ranting is useful for getting frustration off ESR's chest, it doesn't further the cause any more than DoSing the SCO site does. Reasoned, well-thought-out responses will have a lot better effect than giving Darl more ammunition for his own tirades. I think the open-source community in general has been doing a good job of keeping its responses level-headed, and we need to keep fighting the good fight.
ESR should stick to coding. (Score:4, Insightful)
But instead, it's a thousand-word, sophomoric rant accusing Darl McBride of being not as "smart" as people at IBM, boasting that he (Raymond) isn't afraid of lawyers, and topping it all off with that non sequitor about Utah.
It's just inflammatory. It takes a kernel of well-reasoned argument and wraps it up in several layers of immature hubris and bravado. I can't imagine this having any positive effect on anyone with a degree of pertinence in the case at hand; like much of his work, I suspect its real purpose is to inspire populist support and reinforcement for ESR's own ego.
I think the only thing I want to read by ESR from now on is fetchmail [catb.org].
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.)
Re:ESR should stick to coding. (Score:3, Interesting)
At least ESR isn't likely to start burning heretics.
Already done serious stuff (Score:3, Insightful)
ESR's already done the serious bit. The OSI's latest document [opensource.org], written by Rob Landley and ESR, is such an awesome, sober, closely reasoned demolition of the SCO legal complaint that you would imagine IBM could just write "MOTION TO DISMISS" at the top of it and stick it in the mail.
The useful value of this amusing rant is that it potentially widens the audience. Because it's extreme and amusing it get passed around and will be seen by people who aren't going to click a headline to read the technical deta
I I tell everybody how SCOs claim is ludicrous... (Score:3, Funny)
Perceptions (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't really feel sorry for the people that are going to loose large with the influx of daytraders that see SCO as a good inventment and powerful force that can shake even the mighty IBM. They will have lost their money in spite of the truthful information that is easily found. But when they do start loosing large chunks of money, SCO will feel the backlash and it won't be pretty. Those people will have no real allegaance to SCOs business, ideals or Unix history, only money.
I think it is going to be a blood bath that SCO will be luck to escape, ESR has given a good accounting of motivation that the investors are likely to ignore, probably until it is too late to save their investments.
IBM is making everyone hate us! (Score:5, Funny)
Make no mistake, this is not about who is right or wrong, although we all wish it was. This is about money. SCO is like a tick under the skin of Linux. They're going suck as much blood (money) out of the situation for as long as they can.
Despite his protests about the "attacks", McBride is clearly enjoying the fact that people actually know the name SCO. From the article:
"Relevant in the technology industry"? Come on now. The only reason they're "relevant" is that they're threatening the health of the technology industry. It's like saying gential warts is sexy.New strategy in the "war"? (Score:3, Insightful)
If all open source spokespeople / gurus speak up like this, pretty soon the board of SCO will feel like that donkey, unable to start suing for whatever reason because they are unable to choose where to start. How much capital do they have? How long will it take for them to bleed dry?
All together now on three....
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.
Well, it's a nice thought (Score:5, Insightful)
News Flash: SCO wants our money, not their code removed. In the case of Linux, they have no financial incentive to show their cards - they cannot occupy a better position than they do now. As soon as problems are solved they newspapers lose interest, and SCO has to be a product producing business again. We have see how well they do on that basis, and anyway who wants to deal with them knowing how they've approached this issue? I sure don't want to deal with people like that.
This is not going to go away until they get squashed in court. They have made absolutely sure of that, by making incredible claims of ownership. The suspicion of free software from proprietary software trained CEOs plays into their hands. Those people, the ones who make the decisions, don't trust the opinions of the geek world. They listen to lawyerspeak. Hence, the SCO problem doesn't go away until it is clear in the never-never land of legal affairs that they have no teeth, however far fetched we might find their claims.
Nor would it matter even if the community took the extreme action of moving to FreeBSD or Hurd, or developed a new kernel altogether. SCO would simply make more claims that they have IP that any possible functional OS kernel would have to infringe on. As awful as it sounds, that is in fact the purpose of some IP claims - people want to occupy strong positions to be able to legally make claims like that. So it doesn't sound as bizarre to some people as it does to us. I doubt it is true, but they have nothing to lose at this point and SCO will cling to the ankles of the open source community until they are struck off by a judges gavel. Nothing else will carry any weight whatsoever.
So kudos to ESR for telling them off as they deserve, but aside from those already convinced SCO has lost it this won't do much. In corporate america lawyers are IT in matters such as this. We are going to have to batten the hatches and weather the storm, because SCO has targeted open source. This has (IMHO) been about destroying the free software world from day one, and they won't stop even if the linux kernel gets abandoned. There will still be a viable free operating system out there of some kind, and they will still have more work to do. We can't satisfy them as long as we exist.
Re:Well, it's a nice thought (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, they may be in a legally precarious position. If you claim contract violation, the judge is likely to ask how the plaintiff tried to mitigate damages. If the defendant says "we offered to fix the problem, but they refused to tell us what we did wrong, then demanded 3billion USD," the plaintiff has a problem.
For example, the Free Software Foundation has never sued anyone. They see a GPL violation; if they hold the copyright on the software, they contact the offendor and tell him to comply with the GPL. The offender complies (often it is just a mistake, not malice or attempted theft), and the damage is undone. There is no longer a reason to go to court, and if the FSF did sue, the judge would throw out the case, as the damage was mitigated willingly by the defendant.
Can people refute without being crazed loons? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all nice and good that people are rebutting SCO's wild (and daily) claims, but why are they all filled with the same spittle-fringed invective and circus atmosphere? I could understand phrases like 'smoking crack' and 'drinking kool-aid', I could expect droll movie references, I could predict overzealous bravado from the pages of Slashdot. But why are these child-like protests included in the official "open letters" being sent to mainstream press and directly to SCO's offices?
It embarasses me when I see the "luminaries" of the Open Source (and Free Software yadda) communities begging for attention with such antics. It just entrenches the world's view that all Linux users are immature, unwashed hacker bumpkins with Luke Skywalker style gadget belts, a DeCSS t-shirt, and a security-cracking Zaurus in hand.
IBM is the role-model here, as well as the champion of our battle. IBM has successfully married pin-stripes and rack-mounts. While we're not "passing our statements through IBM" and IBM isn't "orchestrating" our feedback, they surely could teach us something about effective and professional resistance to the legal challenges brought against Linux.
Re:Can people refute without being crazed loons? (Score:5, Insightful)
One that the lawyers like?
That the politicians like?
That passes for polite conversation at a Mormon fondue party?
That is neutered, sterile and grey?
Come off it - when someone is personally maligned as Eric Raymond was by Darl McBride, the use of invective and sarcasm is not only justified, but almost mandatory.
SCO is trying to destroy the Open Source movement for their own greed - if that doesn't make you angry enough to react properly, then nothing will.
And IBM can handle the 'effective and professional resistance' to the lawsuit, while those with wit and style (like Raymond and Torvalds) fight the PR battle.
Chill out, square daddy!
Re:Can people refute without being crazed loons? (Score:5, Insightful)
ESR has a long history of writing tirades like a 14 year old fanboy, albeit one with an excellent grasp of English.
It is possible to write a STRONG article--one full of very clear and ferocious intent, that doesn't contain sophmoric sarcasm and literary raspberries.
Interestingly, ESR quoted Jeff Gerhardt, who managed to do exactly what ESR fails at: tear a strip off of SCO and Darl, offer them a way out, make it PERFECTLY clear where he (and his supporters) stands, and remain mature.
This is a really childish email.. (Score:4, Insightful)
really is this just a troll or what? probably
does more damage to the open source community
then any good.
i mean was the guy drunk or something?
It makes "Flamebait" on slashdot seem "Insightful".
New Dimension (Score:3, Funny)
esr@thyrsus.com
President, Open Source Initiative
Friday, 20 August 2003
So now Eric Raymond is attacking SCO from other time dimensions? SCO is in DEEP doo-doo now!
" brain-boggling disconnect" indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
Take a blue pill, Eric. Who do you think you're speaking for? What is your "alliance" cooking up next? An 10% increase in the amount of outrage on Slashdot? 15% more "IANAL, but somewun shood sew SCO!!!!" posts? Ooh, how about a "yeah, us too, they're, like, bad men" rider on IBM or Red Hat's counter-suits?
I for one would really like to know what ESR and his OSI disciples are "cooking up". We've heard enough bullshit and veiled threats from SCO over this matter. I am simply not interested in being associated with someone prepared to lower himself to their level in that respect.
Put up or shut up, Eric. And while you're at it, don't drag Linus into this. He's a big boy, he can speak for himself.
Make a stand (Score:3, Insightful)
Darl's achieved one thing... (Score:5, Funny)
Is Darl OK? (Score:5, Funny)
I knew when we went all weekend without a SCO story that things were a little off. Now the only SCO news we get are dupes. Are you feeling OK?
You haven't said much in awhile. Either the ESR response cornered you (doubtful) or you've run out of things to say (more likely). Darl, please issue a new press release. We haven't heard from you in awhile and I want to make sure you're still OK. You were innovating so much with all those press releases, one right after another, and now with this lack of press releases I wonder, have you stifled your own innovation? Also, I haven't fallen on my ass laughing boisterously since Friday, and I need some inspiration. Thanks!
Your friend
PS I still owe you a SCO license. The check is in the mail, I promise.
SCO's MIT mathematicians go AWOL (Score:5, Informative)
SCO said, they had three teams, including a team from MIT math department, examine their "proof" of UNIX code improperly in Linux
1. No such team could be found at MIT. And SCO are back tracking on this claim.
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V123/N33/33sco.33n.html [mit.edu]
2. Here is an example quote that SCO made about MIT math involvement:
http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/gov
SCO was able to uncover the alleged violations by hiring three teams of experts, including a group from the MIT math department, to analyze the Linux and Unix source code for similarities. "All three found several instances where our Unix source code had been found in Linux," said a SCO spokesman.
Now people who signed the NDA are dissapearing (Score:3, Interesting)
For A New SCO Article... (Score:5, Informative)
For those of you confused by all the Acronyms: (Score:4, Funny)
ESR = Eric's SCO Rage.
IBM = It's Better Manually.
IANAL = I Am Not a Lawyer/Llama.
I hope this clears up the confusion for TECBA's.
(Those Easily Confused By Acronyms).
Speaking for whom? (Score:5, Insightful)
One, it said what I've been thinking for ages -- you're screwing with the wrong community on this one. Some of you are going, "What? What community?" Maybe it's just me, but there is a large number of people, using open source, who basically have the same mindset about such things. No, we don't always agree, but that's our strength, not our weakness. Flexibility is more profitable than agreement. ESR's commentary is just playing back what a lot of us, maybe not all of us, but most of us have thought about SCO one time or another.
That being said, another reason is because in order to mobilize a community of anyone, you have to have inspiring people to "wake up" the masses and get them thinking in terms of defense, retaliation, protection. ESR's letter maybe be frank, bold, perhaps even cocky, but it gets the point across -- we're getting tired of this shit. Time to do something about it. Perhaps this won't mobilize anything and y'all will just stay reclined in your chairs sipping another Bawlz. But if it gets you on your feet asking what you can do to further the open source movement and defense, well...then the job is done.
You might not fully agree with ESR and you might think he's a pompous prick, even. But I think his point still rings true -- SCO is being a real dumbass and they're getting way annoying. Time that they put up or shut up, and if they don't, the community (for whatever that means) needs to start taking the stage to defend what we think is worth defending.
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
ESR: Shut up (Score:5, Insightful)
ESR rides again (sigh) (Score:5, Insightful)
followed by
which could easily be a mob threat. Do you want your boss to see this in the press?
Or
We don't have official press releases or public relations departments for the Linux and open source community as a whole. I'm not saying there should be and ESR has the right, president of OSI or not, to make any comment he wishes. I just think that this type of thing does more harm than good.
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?
Microsoft gameplan (no, not the Xbox) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft gameplan (no, not the Xbox) (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Special story submitter ? (Score:3, Funny)
Similar story occurred in England, too, when Northumbria University considered changing its name to "Cumbria University, Northumbria and Tyneside" ...
Re:poison? (Score:5, Funny)
The only way to kill him is to sprinkle jolt cola on him and drive a copy of the GPL through his heart.
Otherwise he'll just live for centuries and every so often jump out of the closet to sue IBM.....
Re:yea well (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Linking style guide (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Go, Eric, Yeah!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly his comments on this DoS attack on SCO are outragous, sure he might know who it was, but don't go bragging about it and don't associate the whole OSS movement by saying stupid things like this. [infoworld.com]
"He's one of us. He is part of the community around open source software and the Internet infrastructure and he's pretty senior," Raymond said.
Right, so what he's saying to a casual observer is that all OSS developers are vandals who resort to illegal acts when someone pisses them off just because they have the skills to do so.
You can mod me down for having a go at one of the open source figureheads, but he needs to think about the results of what he says before he says it.
Tom.
Re:How old is ESR? (Score:5, Funny)
For my part, I thought it a well constructed, amusing, angry rant, worthy of the widest possible dissemination - perhaps you need to read it again with your brain in gear.
Re:Please don't feed the trolls (Score:3, Insightful)
Call me slow, but you hit the McBride head right on the nail with this. How many of us have encountered Usenet trolls that threaten to sue everyone in sight?
Raymond may be guilty of feeding the troll but the kind of threats he made in his open letter are very analogous to those of us who have confronted newsgroup trolls with "Come on, buddy, have at it, file the suit & see what I can sling back at ya". Frustration builds up, the insults become intolerable &
Re:Is it real? (Score:3, Funny)
Ah, you must be new to Mr. Raymond's writings. Don't worry, you get used to it.