Slashdot Mirror
SCO Protest And Anti-Protest In Provo
a.ameri writes "On Friday, June 20, the Provo Linux Users Group decided to head on over to SCO's offices and hold a protest; information on the event, including pictures and press coverage, can be found on
the PLUG page. Among other things, the protesters claim that SCO employes came out and joined the event holding pre-prepared signs saying things like 'I love software piracy' and 'Try communism - use Linux.'" There are some funny shots linked here (thanks to reader lucif latum). Daddio64 points to the press covereage in the Deseret News and Provo Daily Herald.
You're a corporation. You're supposed to keep quite and smirk at protesters. You do not allow your employees to come out and hold their own "anti protest", especially when a large percentage of the computing world think you're unbalanced anyway!
Earth to SCO. SCO come in now...I think we lost 'em.
I owe the Slashdot crowd an apology. Seeing that type of behaviour here, I thought it was a thousands high schoolers bashing away at a thousand library computers on their first, euphoric Internet high. But damn, professional adults stoop to this kind of bigoted, ad hominem baiting? Communism and Iraq? And France? Man, that's unbelievably depressing. All I can hope is potential future employers of these people see those signs before SCO does it's inevitable endo.
Analogizing drugs and Open Source is 13-year-old crap, and I'm sure ESR and others will have a ball with this.
Nice going SCO. Thanks for proving (in "graphic" detail) what kind of corporation you truly represent.
And the readers see it and go, "Hey, I use Linux! And I know about SCO! And I know the original cartoon!"
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
For the sake of discussion, let's assume the case has merit. The Linux community will rewrite the improperly used code, redesigning it if need be, craft tools to migrate everyone over to it, and go on. This is open source, utter transparency, no secrets. They can't go after every line of the current kernel, we know that, and there's more than one way to do everything.
SCO will be soon be a shell company. They might as well be making buggy whips. I think this is the ultimate agenda of the leadership, they just hope to cash out with the settlement from IBM.
It was interesting to me how the PR folks tried to associate Linux with software piracy and communism. I don't think this is because of a real misperception on their part, it seems much more likely to be spin-directed FUD. It's more pathetic than enraging to me.
It really all seems like a legal strategy to exploit the fact that our IP laws have not really caught up with the PC revolution. They might get some money from IBM, if they do, they leverage their legal victory and liquid revenues to bump the stock price and sell the company. It won't fool Warren Buffet or Peter Lynch, but there are still plenty of fools with money in the world.
This type of business strategy--utterly bereft of moral values--has not yet entirely faded from view. The real tragedy is not the threat to Linux, but the threat to SCO employees and investors. I don't see this working out well for them in any way. Some lawyers will get rich, though.
So, follow the money. SCO is now a lawsuit machine. IBM will survive this no matter how it turns out. SCO won't.
The best way to do is to be.
And in a few months he (or she, you goddamn PC assholes) will have a lot more time to read /. SCO has not just filed suit against IBM, they have declared war against the rest of the IT world. (Linux = Communism?!?!)
These people better start thinking towards the post-SCO world, much like the concentration camp guards started making nice towards the end of WWII.
You see, even if they win their lawsuit against IBM and everybody else, they will be a pariah in the tech community. Nobody will do business with them, and eventually they'll spend their $3 billion on operating expenses and tacos and go bankrupt.
And most of the OSS community will be saying goodbye good riddance.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Yeah, great, but isn't humor inappropriate here? Why are the linux dorks being buddy buddy with their arms around the SCO CEO? They have signs that say "Linux feeds my family", so how can it be a joking matter for them? If someone did something to cause you to lose your livelihood, would you joke around and be buddy buddy with them? Just a thought.
Note that I'm not a linux dork being defensive, I think it's pretty pointless to go out there and protest, I just like to point out possible hypocrisy when I see it.
There are times for fun, and there are times for seriously defending what you think is important.
This is a time to take up a rigid position, and this isn't an appropriate area for feel-good games. Put plainly: The world's single most important piece of free software and the future of free software's acceptance are at stake.
That sounded like bullshit to me, until I found the pictures of Darl McBride and a couple of protestors. God knows the Linux community can be, um, a little humorless and self-congratulatory, and SCO has veered into the realm of insanity. The concept of Darl laughing with the pro-Linux people simply doesn't make any sense whatsoever, since he's accused nearly half the tech industry of outright theft. It's hard to think of any of this as "FUN" when you're dealing with a group of corporate raiders who are literally trying to sabotage the future of computing.
I'd reached the conclusion a long time ago that Linux was grossly overrated, but it's also done great things for my workplace and my research field, and it's a shame to see another sleazebag IP holding company try to hijack that. I don't condone IP theft or DDoS attacks on SCO's website, but I also wouldn't speak to the likes of Darl McBride except through a lawyer.
Oh, by the way, the Communism thing isn't funny any more. It's not McCarthyism, but it's pretty fucking stupid and offensive. Most of us in The Real World use and like Linux because it helps us do our jobs and make (and save!) money, not because it fits our half-baked socialist ideals.
"Linux could still be used; it just wouldn't be free," Stowell said. "These people are upset because they've been enjoying a free ride for some time. They're upset their free ride will potentially be gone."
I think that this pretty much puts to rest the question of whether or not SCO wants to own Linux.
Part of the problem is that this wouldn't work. Under the GPL, if you can't distribute it for free, you can't distribute it at all. To relicense Linux as an SCO-0wned product, you'd have to get the agreement of all the contributors. I doubt that that would happen.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
They want Linux users and OSS types to fly off the handle thus creating more negative press, just ignore them. Right now they're only making themselves look bad. Really bad. Man, these are adults?
The protestor's signs were regular protest signs - "SCO AWAY" and whatnot. They were somewhat whitty, but they had a serious point to make. But the SCO signs were downright awful. I don't know about you, but portraying Linus as Hitler and Tux as a Nazi, with the phrase "give communism a try" isn't funny to me. Especially seeing as how Linus is European...you see where I'm going with this.
Whether it was intended for humor or not, SCO owes Linus and the OSS community a formal appology.
--
http://nemilar.net - Not your grandmother's soup kitchen
>(ie they have a sense of humour).
I'm not sure about that. Let's see theres a BILLION dollar lawsuit, linux's reputation has been tarnished, IBMs AIX licenses are now in question, Linus himself is getting threatened, and now they're hurling insults under the guise of "just kidding!"
Its like that wanna-be bully in gradeschool who insults you then says, "I'm kidding!" Its a lame attempt to bait OSS types and get them angry thus producing more negative press.
Yeah, right. What planet are YOU on?
- The right of free speech is a restriction preventing the government from limiting your speech. It is standard practice for companies to tell their employees what they should and shouldn't say to the press.
- Do you think for an instant that SCO would allow any of their employees to keep their jobs if they stood out their and SUPPORTED the protestors? That would be a MEANINGFUL test of their right of free speech. If the company didn't want them to come "out of the SCO building with pre-prepared posters for the protest" do you think they would allow them to? Their lawyers would most certainly have sent memos around telling the employees exactly how they were expected to behave.
In short, the notion that these folks aren't supported by SCO or that SCO wouldn't stop them if they didn't support such activities is ludicrous and absurd. Anyone who would harbor such delusions should seek professional help.SCO doesn't care anymore.
They aren't the same company as Caldera once was - even Ransom Love is gone. I'd seriously doubt if any employees of the company from 2 years ago are there, and most of those from a year ago are probably gone.
The only thing that exists of the Caldera we once knew are the records of its past. It's just a bunch of lawyers at this point, and maybe a few remaining techies.
It is now a purely parasitic organization - and we can all just hope that the remaining IP around Unix is either opened (as being "generic" now) or that the IP is bought by a company that (like AT&T) allows its free use.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Why are the linux dorks being buddy buddy with their arms around the SCO CEO?
Indeed.
Unfortunately, actions like these take the whole point away from having the protest in the first place.
I recognize that "techies" are not particularly good at protesting stuff; that's not what they do and there is no reason why they should be. However, this action by Canopy (provide drinks for everyone, buddy-buddy with folks there and "We're all friends now!") was a calculated public relations move to diffuse the impact of the protest.
If the protest was a cold, "Screw you SCO" affair, that's a real protest and will be portrayed as such. This, however, appears to have been turned into a simple picnic on SCO's front lawn.
Which is exactly what SCO wanted.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
Everyone is always talking about the fact that SCO wants a buy-out ... I'm thinking that is exactly what they want but they are expecting it from a completely different company than IBM. SCO knows that Linux is becoming a major competitor in the Corporate world and what company is doing everything it can to stop this .... ding ding ding ... that's right Microsoft.
... normally you approach the party that you believe is causing the problem(IBM in this case) and ask for them to resolve the issue, so that both parties can save face if there is a problem ... however SCO began this in the public domain and refuses to show any actual proof. If actual proof was shown the linux community would remove the lines ASAP (contrary to SCO believe there is definatly more than one way to scin a progrm) however at this point that would damage their prospects at a MS buyout (no linux threat = no MS $$$'s).
I have seen tons of comments about how what SCO is doing is very odd
At this point they are only damaging their reputation and making people question the reputation of linux. They have destroyed any semblance of a "corporate image". They company that will potentially benefit the most from this whole scandal is MS. I mean look at how quickly they sent funds to SCO. By paying SCO they were trying to "legitimize" SCO's claims in the public eye. I wouldn't be suprised to see a MS buyout of SCO in the neer future.
We don't need no stinking sig!
The problem is that a SCO buyout rewards Canopy group, thus encouraging Canopy (and others) to try stunts like this. These bottom-feeders will be back with a new lawsuit every day of the week if this tactic turns a profit.
In the end game: suit or no suit, settlement or no settlement, SCO has little to sell and nobody to sell it to. If IBM takes a hardline attitude (and they win), SCO will be unable to deploy their executive golden parachutes. If McBride & associates actually want to continue their careers, then it becomes interesting.
Indeed, this despite the increasingly obvious fact that the French were right. But hey, if we make enough clever anti-French jokes, maybe we won't have to face up to how idiotic we look now.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
SCO could have just originally said... "Here is the code that shouldn't be there" And give a month or two for kernel developers to produce code patches for 2.0.x, 2.2.x, 2.4.x and 2.5.x. Then say that users are legally required to migrate to the nearest patched kernel or perhaps use some kernel diffs on whatever version they are running. Then later go after any "linux company" that is still actively making available the code in question. But then again, as some marketing pundits will tell you "there's no such thing as bad publicity"
Let us consider the following facts:
- Linux user cannot be characterized, by and large, as music or software pirates -- there is no precedent to label them as such any more than Microsoft Windows users
- Not paying for Linux is not a piracy issue, Linux is, by it intent and modus operandi free of licensed and proprietary code
- Presuming that IBM has placed illegitimate, license bearing code into the Linux source tree this does not necessarily reflect poorly on Linus Torvalds, Linux kernel developers, Linux users or the OpenSource community
- Linux usage != stupidity. (I can only assume that this was meant to be farsical. In the realm of debate the tactic of argumentum ad hominim, "argument against the man," (In this case: "You're stupid!") is generally abandoned in grade school.
- "Ya Vol!"[sic] (Intended, correct me if I'm wrong, to be "Jawoll!" a characterization of Nazi adherence to orders popularized by "Hogan's Heroes".) is a crude characiture of nazism not communism. But hey! To the culturally illiterate, what's the difference? Besides, IBM is an oligarchy.
- And... Well I could go on but that would be a full scale rant.
I'm reasonably certain that these posters (A) do not characterize all of the "anti-protesters" and (B) do not characterize most SCO workers. It does reflect poorly on SCO managment who allowed their employees to present the above image at the SCO Lindon facility. In all fairness I have no idea what the "anti-SCO" protesters were carrying. It may have been equivalently malevolent drivel.> I know it's the in thing now to bag on "those French cowards" but...
Also "in" to ignore the fact that French troops are the only Western soldiers trying to stop the horror in the Congo right now.
Three million people have died in the Congo over the past four years, but the members of the "Coalition of the Willing" who were so eager to 'rescue' the people of Iraq are falling all over themselves to see who can ignore what's happening in Africa the best.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Just ignore the little things, like our economy which shrub has put in the dumpster, or the 19-year old kids dying in the desert (more than one a day since shrub declared we "won" the war), or the lying about the quality of the intelligence of the threat of weapons of mass distruction this while mess was based on. Please leave the voting to folks who actually CARE about our country.
TSG (as distinct from the original SCO, now called (IIRC) Tarantella) seems to be claiming just about everything, probably working on the idea that the worst outcome is the judge saying no. The common-language term for this is "trying it on".
As I read the contract docs, IBM unquestionably retains the rights to any derivatives they wrote, the only thing they can't distribute is the original source. In their last Exhibit, TSG are implicitly including those derivatives in "SOFTWARE PROGRAMS", trying to eliminate a distinction carefully drawn in the original contract.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I'd hire a SCO employee without hesitation, so long as they weren't the CEO or on the board of directors. The rest of the employees are just trying to do their jobs, in an economy where it's not easy to find a better job. If I were working for SCO when they started this mess, I'd still be working there and I'd be hoping that we might someday get a leader who recognizes that the economy is in shambles, and would try to fix it.
This is something that's been puzzling me a fair bit, actually: there were couple of mid-sized countries that stood up to the only actual superpower, saying it would be wrong to attack Iraq (based on just inconclusive evidence and lots of strong words). And that's cowardice? Knowing US military, political and economic might, that seems fairly brave move on France's (and Germany's) part to me. Note that I'm not commenting on right/wrongness of those actions, just the impression on courageousness (or lack of).
It's bit like people calling 9/11 terrorists cowards; I mean, they were scumsucking evildoing asswipes and all, but still; doing a kamikaze attack like that isn't your every day coward would really do. I guess it's just using word "coward" as a general derogatory term, and/or applying different criteria for different people (as in "if they weren't such cowards they'd had attacked US army forces directly").
As to France specifically; I know, I know, it is/was just "sore loser's syndrome"; the problem wasn't who's brave who's not, but who is with us or against us. But still... it is scary how sometimes politics get close to Orwell's new world, where war is peace, lies are truth, and bravery is cowardice.
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Let's not forget the hundreds of iraqis now being killed by US soldiers. Let's not forget the thousands of people who are still without water, electricity or food. Let's not forget that the soldiers were supposed to leave as soon as possible.
Then again, maybe you don't get those reports on the news in your area.
A latent existence
BULLSHIT!
This *is the* reason the world disagreed w/ the US.
Good leaders make decisions based on PRINCIPLE(!); and the "We are going to invade Iraq because we lie about trumped-up charges" is *not a reason*.
The rest of the planet didnt want to *start a war* -- you know, launch an army to INVADE another country... there is NO reason to do it. Ever.
Because USofAmerica believes it can do what it likes, on the basis of serving its percieved-best-interest is what irks the planet. We have to apply international law, freedoms, rights and responsibilities equally. Not "might-makes-right" pursuit of national interests.
Bottom line: i applaud the French for standing up refusing to legitimize the illegal invasion, slaughter, and occupation of *any* nation... its was in the USA's interest to do it to Iraq -- who else? when? The USA is a rogue nation, out of control... lead by unprincipled tyrants.
Lets not forget the thousands of Iraqis who were tortured on a daily basis and the thousands more abused under the Iraqi government.
Yes, I'm glad that stopped.
But that has not been a consistent good reason for invading another country.
If it were, why isn't the United States invading other countries with appalling records of human rights abuse?
PRC, North Korea, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Congo, just about every other country in the Middle East, etc.
It's becoming clear that GWB made a mistake. If the evidence for WMD was just so compelling, then it certainly ought to have turned up by now, as American forces have free reign to look anywhere in Iraq. Many American choose to believe his warnings about WMD in Iraq. The evidence he presented months ago was not compelling, but one could always argue that he was supplied with greater evidence that he could not reveal due to concerns of national security and preserving an intelligence-gathering capability. That is, we had to trust him that he really dug deep into the evidence and knew categorically that WMD in Iraq were a problem. [The supposed tie between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein was as weak as they get. If removing bin Laden's support network were the real object, the USA would have invaded Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and not Iraq.]
I support American troops, who are dedicated men and women, and have sworn an oath to obey their commander in chief. They're great people we can ill afford to lose and they're putting their lives on the line.
Theremore, the commander in chief has an incredibly important responsibility to exercise, and he has not done it properly.
I don't believe GWB is malicious or evil, just not capable of acting as President of the United States with the dedication and thoroughness the office deserves. He's made a mistake in gullibility, believing Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, and accepting their appointments inthe first place, not willing to do the homework it takes to know what is really going on. Before you commit someone else's life to a military objective, you owe it to them to be as smart as you can, as hardworking as you can, willing question your advisors, get alternative opinions, etc.
The United States Armed Forces, the people of the United States, and the world at large, all deserve the best possible person in that position. Sadly, the best person is not there now.
"Provided by the management for your protection."