Slashdot Mirror
SCO: FSF Reply To GPL Claims, Conference Sponsors Back Off?
bkuhn writes "Last week's Wall Street Journal (and other news outlets) carried statements by SCO's Mark Heise challenging the "legality" of FSF's GPL.
FSF has
issued a response to this baseless claim." Also, mcgroarty points out that Intel and HP seem to be backing swiftly away from their sponsorship of SCO's in-progress Las Vegas conference (a EWeek article suggests that "Intel Corp. was recently billed as one of the lead sponsors of SCO's Forum 2003 conference here this week, but then suddenly disappeared from all marketing and press material for the forum. It appears that Hewlett-Packard Co. also got cold feet. As late as last week, SCO was telling attendees that HP would be giving a partner keynote at the forum on Tuesday morning. But on Sunday the schedule of events given to attendees when they registered makes no mention of an HP keynote...") M adds: Now we've got a few stories from the conference: News.com.com and Eweek. Despite some bad headline writing at News.com, SCO simply continues to employ the Chewbacca defense, showing no code to back up their claims. Amusingly, Darl McBride started his rant about copyright infringement by copying some footage from a James Bond movie. Bravo!
Seeing Intel and HP walk out does my heart glad.
Hopefully these companies are seeing SCO's actions for what they are; an outright attempt to hijack the work of thousands of developers by fallacious statements, spin, and, at best, a tiny toehold on the body of work Linux constitutes.
Despite SCO's spin to the contrary, this isn't about the GPL model versus the proprietary software model; it's about unethical versus ethical business practices, and SCO is on the wrong side of the fence.
Would any reputable company now risk involvement with SCO on any level? Look at it this way. SCO made, in essence, a business deal. They distributed their software under the GPL, in an attempt to receive the benefits that the GPL approach can offer, much like Red Hat did. Now, they want to renege on the deal because they think they've got something more profitable. For them to now claim that they somehow didn't understand, or were somehow unaware of, their own business decisions is just completely disingenuous. What company would now sign any kind of business deal with them, knowing that given their history, they're likely to try to cry "do-over!" at some point and redefine their contract, making all sorts of legal threats and spurious statements in the process, and perhaps just decide that your IP is theirs by whatever stretch of the contract wording they can muster?
This is what's bad for business, not the GPL.
On a related note, I'd like to suggest that any companies out there contemplating paying SCO's extortion fees, even if the price is not a concern to them, refuse to pay it on principle. One good argument for not paying the Mafia, is that if you do, they are going to get bigger, and "lean" on you even more. And... I really must apologize to the Mafia for the analogy, as most of their profits derive from "consensual-crime" activity, rather than outright attempts to steal the property of individuals, in direct violation of the spirit and letter of the law. The Mafia has a higher percentage of legitimate business activites than SCO does.
SCO's activities are to the benefit of no one, except themselves. HP and Intel, by contrast, benefit themselves largely through developing products and services to benefit their customers, something SCO has apparently lost the capacity to do. Even the companies which have products in direct competition to Linux would have a hollow victory if SCO's legal challenge to the GPL resulted in an invalidation of the fundamental notion of copyright upon which the GPL rests, and the discretion it gives to the work's creator, for-profit, for-humanity, or both. The sooner this is recognized by everyone, as these two companies are taking the lead toward, the better.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
What gives? First they blast the GPL, then proudly exclaim that they're using GPL'd software to extend their capabilities. They blast GPL programmers as being stupid, then get applause when advertising GPL'd software. This is shit. Samba, pull your head out of your ass and revoke their right to use/distribute your software. They're attacking the GPL and can't be trusted to abide by any of the GPL's provisions. Sheesh.
I like the idea, but I'm not sure it would do any good. The current incarnation of SCO doesn't seen to care very much about selling any products. Their present business model revolves entirely around litigation, extorting money from Linux users, and spreading FUD to artificially inflate their stock price. While you might boycott them by not buying into their protection racket license, and removing any legacy SCO Unix you might be running, I'm afraid it wouldn't affect their bottom line nearly as much as with a traditional sales-driven corporation.
That is the whole problem from SCO's point of view. If the whole thing goes away they can't continue to sell the stock and enrich the board. IIRC, they've even said as much. To paraphrase: "We'd show you the code, but then teams of open source would remove the code and replace it with their own versions, and then where would we be?" If nothing else, this seems to prove the old adage "There is no such thing as *bad* publicity." I don't know if they've gotten any non-M$ revenue from this, but the stock is up, and they are back in every trade magazine in the country. Who was talking about SCO before the lawsuit? How many people even knew SCO existed back then? Of course that begs the whole exit strategy issue. Press release: "The SCO Group announced today that in the interest of good will they have agreed to abanden their lawsuit against IBM. IBM has also agreed to impelemnt processes and procedures to protect the intellectual capital of all independant software vendors to better protect the livelyhood of programmers everywhere. Finally, in an effort to help prompte open source software the SCO Group has established a multi-million dollar fund to be used to promote and develop open source solutions."
kevin zollinger - kevin@mailsoap.com Spam Free Email!
That would be a nice trick, since SysV didn't have NUMA.
SCO is so full of shit it's not even funny.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Back in the Red Hat 5.1 days, one of the Que how-to books came with a bonus copy of Caldera 1.3 (IIR). It blew Red Hat away, worked like gangbusters, dead solid and fast (for it's P133 time). It really is a shame to see what the company has become.
But this is completely in keeping with the way American capitalism works. For instance the Department of the Interior sells leases to ranchers to put cattle on (often overgrazed land). But groups like the Sierra Club have been refused those leases, even though high bidder, because they planned on leaving the land fallow.
The rule seems to be "you must profit by your rights or your rights don't count".
The US isn't alone. How about this story about a Canadian city that won't give a place a liquor license unless they server liquor (they want it so patrons can smoke tobacco).
Ain't humanity wonderfully silly?
Actually, according to SCO any work derived or made for an original is owned by the first inventor/holder. I hope they paid Ian Fleming in full for writing James Bond at first. Or whomever first wrote a spy novel. Or Boccaccio who wrote the first novel. And the Lumiere brothers for making movies possible. And...
I guess you get the idea. If any and all derivative works are considered the property of the original inventor/creator, there would be no inventions, because everything comes from something else...
Hey, we could probably find a sumerian mummy and bring it in court to file a suit against SCO for use of the written language.
Actually, at this point, I'm expecting SCO to sue God or something like that, since his "creation" incorporates works derivative of Unix.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.