Law Professor Examines SCO Case

An anonymous submitter writes "This law professor from the University of California points out weakness in SCO's legal bluster, and further takes a poke at closed software, for those hungry for more SCO scraps. At the end, he references Slashdot for more info ('itself a demonstration of the power of dispersed individuals working together')."

Comments

Re:No Kidding?

[notque]

No, but we're getting close.

Re:I've said mostly it all.

[why-is-it]

Almost perfect. You only forgot a couple of things:

* a reference to Natalie Portman
* some action involving hot grits and person "J", who may or not be Natalie Portman
* a goatse link

Apart from that, you have pretty much mastered /.

[OT] /. Hate Crime Policy?

[bayofpigs]

Apparently we have a case of an immature individual committing an act of anti-semitism, illegal in the US, where this site is hosted and read a lot, and in Europe, where it's read a lot, too. CmdrTaco, the elders: are you going to do something about this individual and his petty agenda? I believe we don't deserve to see racial hatred nick above a message. Isn't the user in violation of /. policies? I'll watch this nick's posts, if it doesn't C&D will refer this to the Defamation League. (Also, if the e-mail works, hotmail should shut down their account as well.)

Re:No Kidding?

[Trolling4Dollars]

Welcome to my friends list L. VeGas

Re:No Kidding?

[GnarlyNome]

Shure it's not agore reinventing the internet?

Give credit where credit is due.

[jbn-o]

The professor's article consistently fails to give credit where credit is due. "Linux" is not an operating system and it never was. Linux is a part of an operating system called a kernel (which acts as a bookkeeper managing the resources of a computer so applications can share those resources without conflict). It's fair to credit the major chunks of an operating system; GNU and Linux are both valuable chunks. It's also less confusing to the reader if one refers to the union of the GNU operating system with the Linux kernel by mentioning both parts (hence the term "GNU/Linux"). For the FSF's take on this, please read their essay which also has a link to a FAQ on this issue.

Also, the article inappropriately and inaccurately attributes the concept of copyleft to the Open Source movement. Copyleft, to quote the FSF, is "a general method for making a program free software and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free software as well". This concept and the term was invented by Richard Stallman, father of the Free Software movement. Stallman started GNU and the Free Software Foundation over a decade before the Open Source movement came along. He also defined the need for software freedom, something the Open Source movement eschews.

Finally, it would be nice if the professor clarified that the term "free" has multiple meanings in English and that the meaning which is most important for this discussion is the one referring to certain freedoms, not price. The "free" in "free software" has to do with the freedoms to share and modify software. The freedoms of free software are a big part of why the GNU/Linux system (and other free software systems) are worth using.

I hope the professor will find the time to correct the errors in his article.

Re:Give credit where credit is due.

[jbn-o]

So far all of SCO's claimed violations are related to code in the Linux kernel. Therefore GNU has nothing to do with this lawsuit.

However, this Slashdot thread is discussing Professor Chander's article on the issue which repeatedly makes reference to "Linux" as an operating system:

[...] The suit arose because IBM has made a strong push towards using the ever more popular Linux operating system for computers. [...]

[...] Then, about a decade ago, a young Finn named Linus Torvalds introduced an operating system (named Linux, after its creator) that did some of what UNIX did. [...]

I am addressing his misuse of the term "Linux" which robs GNU of any credit at all. Your critique about SCO's claims should be directed to the professor because he clearly refers to the entire OS. The professor's reference is incorrect and does not indicate Professor Chander is cognizant of what Linux actually is--a part of the whole, something that deserves recognition, but not to the exclusion of other major pieces of the system (of which GNU is clearly one such piece).

To say GNU "has nothing to do with this lawsuit" is quite wrong. The license under which Linux is licensed came from the freedom-minded concerns of the GNU project (the GNU General Public License). It's great to be thankful for the software, but don't forget the community that grew up around the freedoms of free software. The GNU project proved we can all work together leveraging the power of a copyright regime against the proprietors that want our systems to vanish is also quite an accomplishment.

I'm very grateful to GNU for their software contributions, but to say that GNU and Linux are the only important components of the O.S. is the height of silliness.

Which I never claimed, I said they were both valuable chunks of the system. I am glad you chose to include GNU in your list of contributors. I hope whatever components you select as major regularly includes GNU. I happen to agree with the GNU project's FAQ on this matter. Thanks for recognizing the GNU project's contribution!

Re:I doubt they're going to win.

[psavo]

Try getting a patch without review to the vanilla tree.. :)

You say vanilla but I expand vanilla into 2.5 as well. Recently a pci_for_each_dev macro went away in a 'puff' without any prior notice from Linus. You can read some grumble from Dave Jones' diary (5th June 2003).
Check following code:

pci_for_each_dev(pdev_sb) {
if(pci_match_device(amd_sb_tbl, pdev_sb) != NULL)
goto found_sb;
}

vs.

while((pdev_sb = pci_find_device(PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, pdev_sb)) != NULL) {
if(pci_match_device(amd_sb_tbl, pdev_sb) != NULL)
goto found_sb;
}

Like WTF??