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.
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.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!
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.
> 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
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
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.