Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Caldera Businesses Red Hat Software

Bob Young's Open Letter to SCO/Darl McBride 263

Posted by CowboyNeal from the you-tell-em dept.
Oskie-wee-wee writes "Infoworld is carrying a story about Bob Young (Red Hat, Lulu, Classy Formal Wear, Hamilton Tiger-Cats, etc.) and his open letter to SCO and Darl McBride - in response to Darl's open letter 'defending, in one breath, the SCO suit, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and the Supreme Court Decision in the Eldred vs. Ashcroft case.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bob Young's Open Letter to SCO/Darl McBride More

Bob Young's Open Letter to SCO/Darl McBride

Comments Filter:

  • Repeat??? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Q-Hack! ( 37846 ) * on Friday December 19, 2003 @01:35AM (#7761265)
    isn't this old news???
    • like in the article, SCO has been dis-proven over and over again. the Press is paying to much attention to this case (among other things). by now isn't it apparent by now that SCO is simply a *industry status probe* by microsoft? consider it a spectrum probe launched by the MSS Enterprise. Although, everywhere it scans, it costs resources to the enemy, the open source community. =]

  • sticking it to Darl (Score:5, Insightful)

    by glassesmonkey ( 684291 ) * on Friday December 19, 2003 @01:38AM (#7761289) Homepage Journal
    From Young's open letter to Darl:
    The sad thing about your arguments is that you undermine them by running your company so badly.

    These self-serving "open letters" make SCO appear extremely untrustworthy.

    Darl, for the sake of your case in front of the courts, for the sake of your company's ability to win customers, for the sake of everyone's blood pressure, and to save yourself further personal embarrassment, you might want to be less vocal.
    Finally, some soundbites MSNBC can run with! (oh, well maybe FOXNEWS?)

    • Mirror: santa claus operations (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 19, 2003 @01:57AM (#7761401)
      here is a mirror of the bbspot article
      http://bbspot.com/News/2003/12/sco_christ mas.html

      SCO Must Prove Existence Of
      Santa Claus in Thirty Days
      By Brian Briggs

      Salt Lake City, UT - Supreme Court Judge Isaiah Moore ruled that SCO must show proof of Santa Claus in the next 30 days, or he will dismiss their lawsuit against all Christians and companies profiting from the Christmas holiday.

      A new look for SCO CEO Kris Kringle (formerly named Darl McBride)

      SCO, formerly known as Santa Cruz Operations, recently changed their name to Santa Claus Operations. This change was widely regarded as a move to improve their image after their controversial claims about Linux. Critics of the name change say it's just another fantasy created by SCO CEO Kris Kringle, formerly known as Darl McBride, to profit through litigation.

      In a recent press release SCO said it would begin sending out invoices to anyone who celebrates or profits from Christmas in the next couple of weeks including corporations and individuals. A price list for SCO Christmas licenses which companies and individuals need to celebrate the holiday without violating SCO's intellectual property rights were released as well.

      "Children can avoid penalties by sending 10% of their Christmas gifts to SCO," said Kringle.

      Followers of the case consider the judge's decision a defeat for SCO, because they feel the company cannot prove the existence of Santa Claus.

      Kringle was confident that SCO would prevail in the lawsuit. He said, "We have hundreds of e-mails addressed to Kris_Kringle@sco.com. Under Federal law it is illegal to route e-mail to the wrong location intentionally. This proves without a doubt that Santa Claus exists and he works at SCO."

      Chief Counsel for the company Fred Gailey said he planned to print out these e-mails and place them in giant mailbags to dump on the judge's desk. "When the judge sees the number of e-mails we've received he will have to rule in our favor, or face breaking the hearts of his grandchildren."

      Related News

      Office 2003 Editions Compared

      Notepad Rallies for Extension Name Change

      Office Jesus Will Work Miracles for Food

      "Christmas existed long before the existence of SCO," said VP of marketing for Giantco, Clayton Moneybags. "In fact I heard that at one point it was about celebrating the birth of Jesus."

      SCO Vice president, Jesus Christ countered, "Don't you think we thought of that one too?"

    • Re:sticking it to Darl (Score:5, Funny)

      by Ohreally_factor ( 593551 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @03:57AM (#7761985) Journal
      That's my favorite quote from the open letter: you might want to be less vocal.

      And just to quibble, I think Bob is incorrect where he writes, " It is the crook who should be sent to jail, not the tool. . . "

      Darl has proven many times over that he is a tool that should be sent to jail.

  • Hey (Score:5, Insightful)

    by iamdrscience ( 541136 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @01:39AM (#7761297) Homepage
    An open letter to Bob Young, re: your open letter to Darl McBride:

    Never argue with a fool, you'll be brought down to his level and he'll beat you with experience.

    P.S. don't feed the trolls, Bob, really.

    • Re:Hey (Score:2, Insightful)

      by FearUncertaintyDoubt ( 578295 )
      The way I've heard it said is, "never argue with a fool, because a passerby cannot tell the difference."

    • Re:Hey (Score:2, Insightful)

      by KiwiEngineer ( 585036 )
      Or alternately, don't try to catch a pig by rolling in the mud with it, the pig enjoys it and you only end up dirty yourself.

    • I *MOSTLY* Agree... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thecampbeln ( 457432 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @01:52AM (#7761378) Homepage
      ...but considering SCO's only product is media spin, some high profile/intelligent people need to counter the bullshit they are pumping out. Else no matter how unintelligent the argument, it will eventually be seen as the truth.

      • SCO goals (Score:5, Interesting)

        by js7a ( 579872 ) * <james AT bovik DOT org> on Friday December 19, 2003 @04:06AM (#7762025) Homepage Journal
        SCO's only product is media spin

        That's a simplistic view that ignores what SCO really wants.

        They are not intentionally trying to pump-and-dump, although they will surely be very vulnerable to suits charging such intentions within half a month.

        The truth is that the head executives at SCO really believed that there was some part of SysV inside Linux, and you can tell by the malloc() and other examples that they were showing to the analysts under nondisclosure. They believed it so much that they didn't want to even consider the possibility that they were wrong, and the executives weren't technical enough to tell that their "evidence" was faulty.

        What they've always really wanted is to get a license fee from each copy of Linux in any commercial use. That's why they've resisted explaining exactly which code they consider infringing, because they were afraid Linus would order it replaced right away (which of course he would, if there was any.)

        • Re:SCO goals (Score:5, Insightful)

          by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @05:58AM (#7762405) Journal
          What they've always really wanted is to get a license fee from each copy of Linux in any commercial use. That's why they've resisted explaining exactly which code they consider infringing, because they were afraid Linus would order it replaced right away (which of course he would, if there was any.)
          Isn't that a rather faulty premise, really? It might work if every company with commercial Linux installations were foolish enough to pay the license fee, but I cannot imagine that any court would allow SCO to collect royalties on a product that is mostly other people's work, with a just few (alledged) lines of SCO's code in it. Not without at least disclosing which lines actually belong to SCO, which would then allow the core team to replace those lines.

          Maybe at first the executives had some strange idea about collecting royalties, but when they threw a stone at the sleeping dragon (IBM), it was clear that they just wanted someone to buy SCO, making them rich. Now that this plan fell through, they're trying pump-and-dump. Wilder and wilder claims follow hard on one another, and with each surge in the share price, SCO's leadership sell off a bunch of shares (as others have pointed out here before). The fact that they are offering their lawyers a big chunk of cash if someone buys SCO indicates that they're still in hopes that this will happen.

        • Re:SCO goals (Score:2, Insightful)

          by lone_marauder ( 642787 )
          What they've always really wanted is to get a license fee from each copy of Linux in any commercial use.

          No, what they've always really wanted is to portray Linux as an outlaw, anti-American OS, because that is what their paymasters at Microsoft want.

        • Re:SCO goals (Score:3, Insightful)

          by schon ( 31600 )
          The truth is that the head executives at SCO really believed that there was some part of SysV inside Linux

          I disagree - refusing to show the alleged infringing code shows that they don't have any evidence at all; by refusing to show the alleged infringing code, they are effectively preventing themselves from reaping any monetary benefits from the alleged infringement. A first year law student would know this (do some reading on the Doctrine of Laches).

          and you can tell by the malloc() and other examples

    • Give him a break (Score:2, Insightful)

      by DroversDog ( 450920 )
      Bob sounds battle weary like the rest of us who care and his point anyway is to alert us to the sinister nature of Darls sad view point and that forces are at work who would see Mr McBide's selfish take on copyright enshrined in law. Nothing new here that aside tho' but the message is clear: the proprietory system is under threat and the lobbying must already have started.

      Don't be afraid but be very alert!

    • Re:Hey (Score:2, Informative)

      by chadm1967 ( 144897 )
      Actually, it's a VERY good thing that people like Bob Young are speaking out. We need a lot more of this. We, as users and fans of Open Source applications and operating systems, know that Darl is full of crap. There are some, unfortunately, that feel Darl is right. If more people like Bob speak out, it will help bring those people to our side.

  • Not this again (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 19, 2003 @01:41AM (#7761310)
    It's getting to where any moron can write an "open letter to SCO" and get on Slashdot's frontpage.

  • I had this idea (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Apreche ( 239272 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @01:45AM (#7761333) Homepage Journal
    I know it's not possible or probable, but I came up with this great idea today. The ultimate scenario.

    Linus Torvalds subpoenas Darl McBride under the DMCA for violating the GPL. This results in a repeal of the DMCA in the supreme court.

    I know it's just a dream, but its nice to think it could happen.

    Also, if the DMCA is ever repealed, freakin' party of the century at my place!

    • Re:I had this idea (Score:5, Funny)

      by Geek of Tech ( 678002 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @02:00AM (#7761421) Homepage Journal
      >> Also, if the DMCA is ever repealed, freakin' party of the century at my place!

      You bring the keg and I'll bring the magic markers, shift key, single session cd drive and anything else that at one time was not allowed by the DMCA.

    • Re:I had this idea (Score:4, Funny)

      by Stonent1 ( 594886 ) <stonentNO@SPAMstonent.pointclark.net> on Friday December 19, 2003 @02:32AM (#7761612) Journal
      Linus Torvalds subpoenas Darl McBride under the DMCA for violating the GPL. This results in a repeal of the DMCA in the supreme court.

      This sounds very Douglas Adams to me. It goes something like this. God exists on faith. Proving that he exists will only negate the need for faith, and thereby, God disappears in a puff of logic. (I know that is nowhere near the exact phrasing, but you get the idea)

      • Re:I had this idea (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Richardsonke1 ( 612224 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @03:02AM (#7761750)
        The real text, if you want it:

        "Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so
        mindboggingly useful [the bablefish] could have evolved purely by chance that some
        thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the
        non-existence of God.
        "The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I
        exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am
        nothing.'
        "`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It
        could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore,
        by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
        "`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly
        vanished in a puff of logic.
        "`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove
        that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

  • is this everyone gets some spotlight time? (Score:3, Redundant)

    by jasonp1014 ( 54027 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @01:46AM (#7761340)

    An open letter from Linus or Stallman, or the heads of IBM or whatever make sense since they're directly involved.

    So what is the deal with Bob Young? Why is he involved with this? Is this how everyone get's attention now - write an open letter to Darl?

    I didn't see much in the letter that was particularly informative, insightful or articulate.

    I want to see someone really let loose with a civil suit suing SCO's pants off, a class action lawsuit, or even better a SEC criminal investigation.
    These open letters to Darl just kind of make me yawn...

  • Quite frankly, his letter is rather weak. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by inflex ( 123318 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @01:50AM (#7761368) Homepage Journal
    I would have expected better to be honest. Instead the letter seems to drift about, morphing from rhetorics to tongue-in-cheek. Perhaps it's been specifically designed to work with Darl's psych?

  • slashdotted (Score:5, Informative)

    by dtfinch ( 661405 ) * on Friday December 19, 2003 @01:50AM (#7761370) Journal
    It took about 30 seconds to load, so I'm posting the letter here:

    Dear Darl,

    Many smarter people than me have demolished your arguments around the idea that anyone has knowingly stolen any property from you. Yet you continue to refuse to tell anyone what it is that you claim has been stolen. So your arguments against others ring very hollow. It is like my claiming you broke into the trunk of my car and stole something from me. But then I refuse to tell anyone, the police or anyone else, what was stolen, or even allow anyone to look in the trunk of my car. Your strategy would be laughable if it were not costing everyone involved huge amounts and of time and effort to correct your errors and respond to your lawyers.

    Secondly, no one is arguing against copyright. Everyone agrees Intellectual Property, from trademark law, to copyrights and patents, is a good thing.

    Ok, so maybe Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation, the inventor of the GPL license, thinks it is not a good idea to copyright software. But even Richard thinks copyright has its place to enable authors to earn a living. Free markets are not so fragile that a new idea like the GPL can threaten them. The only thing that can threaten free markets in a democracy is fear. Fear can cause well-meaning governments to enact flawed legislation. The kind of legislation the DMCA represents. The DMCA is the equivalent of trying to stop break-and-entry of homes by making screwdrivers illegal. Breaking and entering should be illegal. Allowing honest citizens to own innocent tools that evildoers might use to break and enter must remain perfectly legal. It is the crook who should be sent to jail, not the tool nor the owner of the tool.

    The Supreme Court case that you misrepresent in your latest open letter demonstrates the Justices think too much of a good thing may no longer be so good. The case you quote (Eldred vs Ashcroft) was accepted by the Supreme Court specifically because they wanted to consider whether copyright, enacted by the founding fathers with a term of 14 years, may be getting stretched a little too far at its current 95 years. The case was decided based on the Justices concluding that it was up to Congress, not the Supreme Court, to set the terms of copyright law. Groups like Creative Commons are working to fix in the marketplace the problems caused by recent expansions of copyright terms. But then you seem to have little respect for the marketplace.

    The sad thing about your arguments is that you undermine them by running your company so badly. SCO's revenues from the sale of goods and services (not counting some very odd license "revenue") have fallen every quarter since you took over SCO. Corporate America does not illegally download anyone's property to save a few bucks. They purchase the best product and services available from the companies they trust the most. You and your team have proven to be incapable of producing good products, at least not as good as those from other suppliers. These self-serving "open letters" make SCO appear extremely untrustworthy. So you have violated both of the customer service rules you should be focused on honoring.

    Darl, for the sake of your case in front of the courts, for the sake of your company's ability to win customers, for the sake of everyone's blood pressure, and to save yourself further personal embarrassment, you might want to be less vocal. All you are doing is causing your audience to educate themselves. Once everyone understands how wrong you are your stock price will suffer. Hmmm, suddenly when I think about it - you might in fact be doing us all a favor.

    Thanks, Bob.

    Bob Young, CEO Lulu.com

  • DMCA (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 19, 2003 @01:51AM (#7761375)
    It is paramount that the DMCA be given full force and effect, as envisioned by Congress. The judgment of our elected officials in Congress is the law of the land in the U.S. copyright arena, and should be respected as such. If allowed to work properly, we have no doubt that the DMCA will create a beneficial effect for the entire economy in digital technology development, similar to the benefits created by the 1976 Copyright Act.

    • Re:DMCA (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mabhatter654 ( 561290 )
      I understand Darl's reasoning that the 1976 copyright act make it easier for "mass media" to pump out copyrighted content without needing to be hastled by "properly" registering it as "protected" content and by changing the rules for software to allow "binary only" protection...perfect for the "tycoons" that sprouted up that quickly "protected" stuff they initially plagurized or "dumpster" dived for.

      On the other hand, we wouldn't have any corporations or news [i.e. no /.!] on the internet WITHOUT those r

  • Not quite a duplicate (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 19, 2003 @01:53AM (#7761388)
    The open letter from Bob Young is a duplicate [slashdot.org] (follow the bottom link), but the InfoWorld story isn't.

    You've probably read all the standard SCO comments before, though.

  • An Open Letter To Linus Torvalds: (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 19, 2003 @01:57AM (#7761399)
    Dear Linus,

    I have always felt that Linux is a nice operating system (for hobbyists and
    geeks), but there are some areas where it is seriously lacking, especially when
    compared to its main competitor, Microsoft Windows.

    * File sharing. Windows has long been superior when it comes to making large
    amounts of files available to third parties. Even early versions of Windows
    automatically detected and made available all directories thanks to the built in
    NetBIOS-powered file sharing support. But Microsoft has realized that this
    technology is inherently limited and has added even better file sharing support
    to its Windows XP operating system. "Universal Plug an Play" will
    make it possible to literally access any file, from any device! I think
    universal file sharing support needs to be built into the Linux kernel soon.

    * Intelligent agents. With innovations like Clippy, the talking paperclip
    and Microsoft Bob, Microsoft has always tried to make life easier
    for its customers. With Outlook and Outlook Express, Microsoft has built a
    framework for developers to create even smarter agents. Especially popular
    agents include "Sircam", which automatically asks the users' friends for advice
    on files he is working on and the "Hybris" agent, which is a self-replicating
    copy of a humorous take on "Snow-White and the Seven Dwarves" (the real story!).
    Microsoft is working on expanding this P2P technology to its web servers. This
    project is still in the beta stage, thus the name "Code Red". The next versions
    will be called "Code Yellow" and "Code Green".

    * Version numbers. Linux has real naming problems. What's the difference
    between a 2.4.19 and a 2.2.17 kernel anyway? And what's with those odd and even
    numbers? Microsoft has always had clear and sophisticated naming/versioning
    policies. For example, Windows 95 was named Windows 95 because it was released
    in 1995. Windows 98 was released three years later, and so on. Windows XP
    brought a whole new "experience" to the user, therefore the name. I suggest that
    the next Linux kernel releases be called Linux 03, Linux 04, Linux 04.5 (OSR1),
    Linux 04.7B (OSR2 SP4 OEM), Linux 2005 and Linux VD (Valentine's Day edition).
    Furthermore, remember how Microsoft named every upcoming version of Windows
    after some Egyptian city? Cairo, Chicago and so on. I think that the development
    kernels should be named after Spanish cities to celebrate Linux' Spanish
    origins. Linux Milano or Linux Rome anyone?

    * Multi-User Support. This has always been one of Microsoft's strong sides,
    especially in the Windows 95/98 variants, where passwords were completely
    unnecessary. Microsoft has made the right decision by not bothering the user
    with a distinction between "normal" and "root" users too much -- practice has
    shown that average users can be trusted to act responsibly and in full awareness
    of the potential consequences of their actions. After all, if your operating
    system doesn't trust you, why should you trust it? (To be fair, Linux is making
    some progress here with the Lindows [lindows.com] distribution, where users are
    always running as root.)

    With Windows XP, Microsoft has again improved multi-user support. Not only
    does Windows XP come with a large library of user pictures that are displayed on
    the login screen, such as a guitar and a flower, it also has "quick user
    change". This makes it possible to login as a different user with a simple
    keyboard shortcut, and the good news is: programs from the old user keep running
    in the background! Beat that, Linux!

    * Programmability. Microsoft has always been known for making computer
    machine power accessible to end users. The operating system comes with many
    helpful tools such as VBScript, a programming language especially useful for
    developing intelligent agents as mentioned above, and QBASIC, a truly innovative
    "hacker" tool that makes it possible to

  • When this is over.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lord_Dweomer ( 648696 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @02:01AM (#7761429) Homepage
    When this is all over, and Darl is inevitably tossed in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison for securities fraud, I think I will design a "Free Darl!" t-shirt, much in the style of the Kevin Mitnick ones. I think it will be really interesting to see the kinds of reactions I'd get from fellow geeks.

    On second thought...perhaps I should put the design on a kevlar vest as opposed to a t-shirt.

    • Better not have it say "Free Darl!" or the other inmates might get the wrong idea. Plus, kevlar underwear would probably be a better choice.
    • But, you get conjugal visits there, right?

      Lawyer: Conjugal visits? Not that I know of. No, minimum security prison is no picnic. I have a client in there right now. He says the trick is, kick someone's ass the first day, or become someone's bitch. Then everything will be alright.

  • Umm, not everyone (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kris_J ( 10111 ) * on Friday December 19, 2003 @02:11AM (#7761486) Homepage Journal
    Secondly, no one is arguing against copyright. Everyone agrees Intellectual Property, from trademark law, to copyrights and patents, is a good thing.
    I'm arguing against copyright. Not necessarily in the context of SCO vs The Real World, but I no longer believe that IP benefits the community, on balance.
    • IP isn't there to benefit the community, it's their to benefit the person that came up with whatever the IP happens to be.

      • Re:Umm, not everyone (Score:5, Informative)

        by Kris_J ( 10111 ) * on Friday December 19, 2003 @02:57AM (#7761730) Homepage Journal
        IP isn't there to benefit the community, it's their to benefit the person that came up with whatever the IP happens to be.
        This is a common error. IP laws were originally designed to provide an incentive to add to the public domain. Since they no longer result in any benefit to the public domain, they are therefore pointless.

        • This is a common error. IP laws were originally designed to provide an incentive to add to the public domain. Since they no longer result in any benefit to the public domain, they are therefore pointless.
          Ahh, but this is a flaw within our current copyright legislation, not within the concept of copyright itself.

      • Re:Umm, not everyone (Score:4, Insightful)

        by nagora ( 177841 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @05:31AM (#7762309)
        In a country ruled "by the people, for the people" all laws should theoretically be to benefit the community (ie, the people). If a law only aids a small number of people while disadvantaging most then it is exactly the sort of tyranny the founders of America said they were trying to escape.

        The aristocracy of the modern day US have managed to turn this on its head to the point where most Americans now believe that laws disadvantaging any of that same aristocracy are "communist" and bad.

        George the Third would have been astonded at the power wielded by Bush, Gates, Murdoch, Turner, to say nothing of the much more faceless 1% of America that have the money to buy their own laws, senators or even presidencies.

        TWW

        • I think George III (well, British constitutional historians anyway) were pleasantly surprised by the electoral college system. Very few people outside the United States know that the president is not actually elected by the people.

          Of course, the same is effectivly true in the UK where the people vote for a ruling *party* and that party chooses (has already chosen by the time the vote takes place) its leader, but with all the talk of "democracy" in the US, there is a mistaken impression that the president i
          • Very few people outside the United States know that the president is not actually elected by the people.

            Yes, it was a bizarre mistake although I don't know what the reasoning for it was.

            TWW

            • Re:Umm, not everyone (Score:3, Informative)

              by RevMike ( 632002 )

              Very few people outside the United States know that the president is not actually elected by the people.

              Yes, it was a bizarre mistake although I don't know what the reasoning for it was.

              There are a number of historical reasons for the existence of the electoral college, and a number of practical reasons that it has continued to exist.

              First, consider that the USofA was originally formed as a federation of sovereign, independant nations - states - and only formed a national character around the time

        • Re:Umm, not everyone (Score:2, Informative)

          by Badanov ( 518690 )
          In a country ruled "by the people, for the people" all laws should theoretically be to benefit the community (ie, the people). If a law only aids a small number of people while disadvantaging most then it is exactly the sort of tyranny the founders of America said they were trying to escape.

          As a leftist you should know this, but I will respond anyway: Corporations and small businesses are entitled to the same legal protection as any individual. When you talk about law protecting 'the people' you should

          • Re:Umm, not everyone (Score:3, Insightful)

            by arkanes ( 521690 )
            You're making the fundamental mistake of assuming that a corporation deserves protection as an entity, rather than the individuals who make it up. When _I_ talk about the law protection the people, I mean REAL people, not virtual ones.
          • Corporations and small businesses are entitled to the same legal protection as any individual.

            Why? And why do you treat both equally?

            Also, your idea of "leftist" is incorrect. Wanting the law to maximise the well-being of the people is not "left" or "right", it's "fantasy"; the rich never allow such a situation to arise whether the government is communist, fascist or anything in between. As Cornelius Vanderbilt said "What do I care about the law? Ain't I got the power?"

            TWW

    • Re:Umm, not everyone (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dtfinch ( 661405 ) * on Friday December 19, 2003 @02:42AM (#7761658) Journal
      Copyright is an incentive to create. People can share if they want. Without copyright, there would be no more incentive to create public works than there is today, perhaps even less. For example, the GPL relies on copyright to keep derivative works in the public domain.

      It's software patents that everyone should be fighting, whereby someone with money to spare can buy from the government the right to collect fees on the original works of others, regardless of if those others came up with the same ideas entirely on their own.

      • Copyright is an incentive to create. People can share if they want. Without copyright, there would be no more incentive to create public works than there is today, perhaps even less. For example, the GPL relies on copyright to keep derivative works in the public domain.

        If copyright didn't exist, the GPL would be unnecessary. It exists specifically to prevent people from taking from the public domain without giving back. If there was no copyright, everything you create would automatically be available t

        • Re:Umm, not everyone (Score:3, Insightful)

          by spitzak ( 4019 )
          Wrong. The GPL uses copyright to force anybody redistributing a modified version of the code to release the code. Without copyright there is nothing forcing anybody using the code to do anything, and they can keep their modified version secret, thus contributing *less* to the public domain.
      • Copyright is an incentive to create. People can share if they want. Without copyright, there would be no more incentive to create public works than there is today, perhaps even less.

        People were being creative for 10's of thousands of years before copyright was invented.
        It's rather hard to prove that copyright actually encourages creation and publication. It's certainly possible to find examples where the existance of copyright provided no incentive at all.
      • How the hell did the parent post get modded to 5, "Insightful" after claiming that "the GPL relies on copyright to keep derivative works in the public domain."?

        Look, "public domain" is a very specific concept. It's the removal of any and all copyright and patent restrictions on a piece of property.

        The GPL doesn't "keep derivative works in the public domain" any more than paying a SCO license fee "keeps Linux legal". It's problematic to FOSS's acceptance and proper use to conflate the two.

        (However, t

  • All you are doing is causing your audience to educate themselves. Once everyone understands how wrong you are your stock price will suffer. Hmmm, suddenly when I think about it - you might in fact be doing us all a favor.

    After all is said and done, all that may happen is that SCO's stock price may suffer ? Really, is this Just enough ? Will Justice have been served after all the mayhem that has been created ?

    Borrowing from Friedman in NYTimes [nytimes.com]

    ... the image that comes to mind is that famous scene in the movie "The Shining" where Jack Nicholson, playing a crazed author, tries to kill his wife, played by Shelley Duvall, who's hiding in the bathroom. As Ms. Duvall cowers behind the locked bathroom door, Mr. Nicholson takes an ax, smashes it through the door, and with a look of cheery madness peers through the splintered wood and announces, "Heeeere's Johnny."


    And the analogy would be that after all this Johnny's book doesn't sell well in the market. Other than that his life goes on ....

    I am all for a little poetic justice .... How about adopting a little from What The Onion had in store for the Gigli Stars [theonion.com] and dish it out to Darl, SCO, and all the members in their Axis ....

    To quote from the Onion Story ....
    Focus groups at advance screenings for Gigli, a romantic comedy starring Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez set to open nationwide July 30, have demanded a new ending in which both stars die "in as brutal a manner as possible," sources at Sony Pictures said Tuesday.

  • Darl McBride will most likely go to jail for fraud (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Securities fraud is a criminal offence!
  • I just checked it at WSJ on-line. Is there some news that came out that I missed to influence this?
  • My definition of profit is very different then yours. My definition of profit is the ability to allow you to change, modify the source code that "I" have written. A condition of this is that "I" insist that you allow others to do the same.

  • On other news... (Score:4, Funny)

    by ivern76 ( 665227 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @03:02AM (#7761753)
    Darl can't even spell properly. "The FSF and Red Hat believe that the progress of science is best advanced by eliminating the profit motive from software development and insuring free, unrestricted public access to software innovations." Insuring? I never knew the FSF was in the insurance business...sure hope he meant ensuring.

  • If the SCO-Linux battle was moderated on /. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 19, 2003 @03:23AM (#7761851)
    Darl McBride: -1 Troll
    Linus Torvalds: +1 Funny
    Groklaw: +1 Insighful
    Bob Young: -1 Redundant

    Sorry Bob. You're on the good side, but you really contributed nothing.
  • The DMCA is the equivalent of trying to stop break-and-entry of homes by making screwdrivers illegal.

    The DMCA wouldn't make screwdrivers illegal. It would just make it illegal for you to publish instructions on how to fabricate a screwdriver, locate the door, and insert the screwdriver.

  • McBride is a sad man... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Comatose51 ( 687974 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @03:47AM (#7761950) Homepage
    It seems to me that he equates incentive to create with profit. Now, I'm not an idealist or anything and money is a good incentive but there are some of us who just want to advance the art/science. Can he not see that? Surely he must be aware of it. Perhaps he thinks the world is so materialistic that everyone would simply buy his argument.

    Whenever I read his argument I imagine either:
    1. Mr. Burns pulling his hair out, unable to comprehend this new "madness" of non-profit work.

    2. Sauron, unable to imagine what the little geeks have in mind for Linux's profit potentials...

  • GPL vs. SCO (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bckrispi ( 725257 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @03:54AM (#7761978)
    Darl has apparently violated several clauses in the GPL. Are any of these actionable? Is there a precident for this? I can't imagine a more fitting ending for this than Darl being slapped with a class action lawsuit by kernel contributers (as he's being slapped with his cellmate's schlong, securities fraud==bad). I know Linus wants to avoid this kind of litigation, but a successful suit defending the IP rights of contributers and OSS copyright holders, I feel, can only be good for the GPL.
    • No, you don't want to test GPL in the courts against a bunch of proven-sleazy lawyers (not that I am necessarily connecting the above mentioned people with any specific claims about their sleaziness). Any case that gets rejected adds to case-law regarding GPL.
    • One of the bases for IBM's countersuit is that SCO has illegally distributed IBM's copyright material, contrary to the GPL.

      This claim was the impetus for McBride's blather about GPL and the constitution.

  • RamBus (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BuckaBooBob ( 635108 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @04:20AM (#7762071)
    \SCO should have learned from the mistakes that RAMBUS made... You can't build a business model around litigation. Wheres Rambus now?

  • Seriously (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BuckaBooBob ( 635108 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @04:37AM (#7762128)
    SCO is busy trying to keep "Infringing" code away from public eyes.. What for? if they own the rights to it then big deal.. No one can copy it anyway. But if some how they get away with this what Will happen? How could a judge let SCO get away with it..

    I find it inconciveable that they will be able to hide thier "Infringed" code forever.. The second its Identified it will be cleaned and SCO will no-longer have any claim for licence fee's.

    For some odd reason if sco is able to keep it a secret then who on earth will police SCO from charging thier licence fee's once enough changes have been made that thier code is removed?

  • In other news today... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 19, 2003 @04:53AM (#7762176)
    In other news today SCO anounced they were switching to use the services of the law Firm "Dewie, Screwem & Howe" Expect more action shortly!

  • Complain to the FTC and the SEC (Score:5, Informative)

    by Hanno ( 11981 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @06:35AM (#7762523) Homepage
    Since this story is a dupe [slashdot.org] , allow me to repeat myself, as well:

    You guys should complain to the FTC and the SEC about SCO. I have. It's easy [slashdot.org] and yes, they do accept complaints from non-US citizens.

  • The real message of this open letter.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Angostura ( 703910 ) on Friday December 19, 2003 @07:17AM (#7762658)
    Is "please visit Lulu.com".

    Don't get me wrong, he is a splendid, guy, and lulu is spendid site. But what he has discovered here is a splendid way to get free advertising for his new venture.

  • You Have Been Trolled.

    You Have Lost.

    Have A Nice Day.

  • Someone once told me "never argue with a fool, people on the outside can't tell which one is the fool" or something to that effect. This guy should take that advise.
  • Sometimes a letter might not reach its destination if its left open. Close the letter, SCO probably has enough of a company left there to have a letter-opener.

Slashdot Top Deals

"What man has done, man can aspire to do." -- Jerry Pournelle, about space flight

Close