Slashdot Mirror
Eric Raymond's Homebrew SCO Poison
What Can You Expect From A University Named "UH?" writes "Eric S. Raymond responds to Darl McBride's charge that he's drinking IBM's Kool-Aid in SCO's fight against Linux.
The main thrust: Yes, there is an alliance against SCO, but, like the Open Source movement itself, it arises from lots of folks spontaneously striving for a common goal. 'It's beyond me how [you] can have the gall to talk as though we need funding or marching orders from IBM to mobilize against you. IBM couldn't stop us from mobilizing!' "
I was truly surprised when I first encountered something like open source. It was on a mud not linux, but people were spending many hours coding and got very little appreciation for it. They still coded away. Linux is much the same way exept the code is more important. Now, if you try and take that away from them, I promise your in for a fight. You can't take someone's baby away. Dreams are better as dreams than reality.
I also have sent off a message or two to various people, trying to ensure that all the various data items that come up, each of which refutes SCO claims in some manner, get brought together when the court case starts.
For example, in response to a prior claim that the copyright law prevents the GPL from allowing users to make multiple copies, I wrote:
There is an obvious flaw in that reasoning. It focusses on the the public, and not on the copyright holder. A copyright holder decides how a work is to be released, after all, and it is perfectly legal for a copyright holder to release something to the Public Domain, in which case everyone can make unlimited copies. So, the actual relevant fact is the copyright holder has the right to decide on any degree of release between public domain and not-at-all. Therefore, when the copyright holder releases something under the GPL, the copyright holder has decided to accept the GPL's details for a release. In such case the copyright holder is giving the public the right to make unlimited copies, which fact does NOT violate the copyright law.
As a long-time fan of Eric Scott Raymond, let me tell you: just because you disagree with a company, that doesn't make you a "threat." For example, Glen Harbiller campaigned against McDonald's all through the 1970s. McDonald's, of course, tried to sue him. They didn't want him to talk about McDonald's cruel labor practices, subpar food handling practices, and overly hot coffee (!).
Similarly, rallying against anticompetitive bullies like SCO cannot be considered threatening. It is free speech. Now although all my senators and house members are owned by corporations, the justice system will find in favor of crusaders like me and Eric Scott Raymond.
I'm not Seth Finkelstein. I still speak the truth.
Umm... which is it?
FWIW *my* calendar has 23 August 2003 as being a Saturday, and 20 August 2003 being a Wednesday.
***
That detail aside, I love this letter. Thank you, Mr Raymond. That was inspired.
I'm a little concerned about the side threat "As the president of OSI, defending the community of open-source hackers against predators and carpetbaggers is mine -- and if you don't stop trying to destroy Linux and everything else we've worked for I guarantee you won't like what our alliance is cooking up next." It worries me that Raymond would phrase things this way.
I suppose there are a lot of non-violent actions that he could mean: tens of thousands of small claims actions (an idea which I love), protesting, etc. But there are some illegal ones that could be inferred from his statement: DOS, DDOS, DRDOS, etc, that would cause quite a stir; after all, aren't the ones that SCO's going after (the Open Source Community) in possession of (and the authors of) "subversive" source code (in McBride's eyes) that could be used against him on the Internet if the Community deemed it necessary?
No, no, don't flame me; I'm merely trying to put McBride's way of "thinking" (if you can call it that) onto Raymond's letter.
I am sure Raymond meant nothing of sort; however, in McBride's state of dementia and loose grip on reality, I wonder what he will think.
I hope, if it's necessary, that IBM (or more likely the EFF) will be able to send in the lawyers on Raymond's behalf. But I hope even more that it won't be needed.
"Sometimes the truth is stupid." - Lawrence, creator of Prime Intellect
I read this a couple of days ago, and found it rather refreshing.
Eric only said what is on the mind of everyone in the free software/open source movement.
SCO is hitting below the belt, playing dirty ball against free software. It is about time someone vents their outrage.
To paraphrase McBride, the GPL is null and void, and those free/open source guys need to rethink their whole world view, or pay the consequences.
How can you not get upset in the face of such meglomania?
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
Take that offer while you still can, Mr. McBride. So far your so-called ?evidence? is crap; you'd better climb down off your high horse before we shoot that sucker entirely out from under you. How you finish the contract fight you picked with IBM is your problem. As the president of OSI, defending the community of open-source hackers against predators and carpetbaggers is mine ? and if you don't stop trying to destroy Linux and everything else we've worked for I guarantee you won't like what our alliance is cooking up next.
This guy is all over the place, from humor to near, on the fence, threats....but someone has to give McBride some "tough love" and tell it like it is, for his and everyones own good. Ideally this would suffice but I sincerely doubt it will get through the thick skulls over at SCO.
Hell of a read though.
Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!
Right now we need strong language; we need people willing to put it on the line and kick business and government.
Someone asked if I had patched against MSBlast; I said yes, I installed Linux.
It worries me that Raymond would phrase things this way.
It worries me too, particularly because it is Raymond saying these things. I mean everyone knows that he's a gun nut - and one with a bad temper at that. Anyone else think it is ominous that he posts this on a website called 'Armed and Dangerous'?
And we thought the DDOS attacks were bad publicity.
Ouch!
Although this sort of ranting is useful for getting frustration off ESR's chest, it doesn't further the cause any more than DoSing the SCO site does. Reasoned, well-thought-out responses will have a lot better effect than giving Darl more ammunition for his own tirades. I think the open-source community in general has been doing a good job of keeping its responses level-headed, and we need to keep fighting the good fight.
SCO is fighting a war not of fact, truth or honor, but one of perception. Mr. McBride seems mainly interested in raising SCOX share price regardless of method and it has been effective so far, the stock price went up $1.30 ( just shy of 10%) on Monday. Gee, press releases really are a short term substitute for R&D.
I don't really feel sorry for the people that are going to loose large with the influx of daytraders that see SCO as a good inventment and powerful force that can shake even the mighty IBM. They will have lost their money in spite of the truthful information that is easily found. But when they do start loosing large chunks of money, SCO will feel the backlash and it won't be pretty. Those people will have no real allegaance to SCOs business, ideals or Unix history, only money.
I think it is going to be a blood bath that SCO will be luck to escape, ESR has given a good accounting of motivation that the investors are likely to ignore, probably until it is too late to save their investments.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
Like a donkey that starved to death between between two haystacks...
If all open source spokespeople / gurus speak up like this, pretty soon the board of SCO will feel like that donkey, unable to start suing for whatever reason because they are unable to choose where to start. How much capital do they have? How long will it take for them to bleed dry?
All together now on three....
but I'm sure SCO is going to be reading it looking for ways to sue him, not to hear his message.
News Flash: SCO wants our money, not their code removed. In the case of Linux, they have no financial incentive to show their cards - they cannot occupy a better position than they do now. As soon as problems are solved they newspapers lose interest, and SCO has to be a product producing business again. We have see how well they do on that basis, and anyway who wants to deal with them knowing how they've approached this issue? I sure don't want to deal with people like that.
This is not going to go away until they get squashed in court. They have made absolutely sure of that, by making incredible claims of ownership. The suspicion of free software from proprietary software trained CEOs plays into their hands. Those people, the ones who make the decisions, don't trust the opinions of the geek world. They listen to lawyerspeak. Hence, the SCO problem doesn't go away until it is clear in the never-never land of legal affairs that they have no teeth, however far fetched we might find their claims.
Nor would it matter even if the community took the extreme action of moving to FreeBSD or Hurd, or developed a new kernel altogether. SCO would simply make more claims that they have IP that any possible functional OS kernel would have to infringe on. As awful as it sounds, that is in fact the purpose of some IP claims - people want to occupy strong positions to be able to legally make claims like that. So it doesn't sound as bizarre to some people as it does to us. I doubt it is true, but they have nothing to lose at this point and SCO will cling to the ankles of the open source community until they are struck off by a judges gavel. Nothing else will carry any weight whatsoever.
So kudos to ESR for telling them off as they deserve, but aside from those already convinced SCO has lost it this won't do much. In corporate america lawyers are IT in matters such as this. We are going to have to batten the hatches and weather the storm, because SCO has targeted open source. This has (IMHO) been about destroying the free software world from day one, and they won't stop even if the linux kernel gets abandoned. There will still be a viable free operating system out there of some kind, and they will still have more work to do. We can't satisfy them as long as we exist.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
It's all nice and good that people are rebutting SCO's wild (and daily) claims, but why are they all filled with the same spittle-fringed invective and circus atmosphere? I could understand phrases like 'smoking crack' and 'drinking kool-aid', I could expect droll movie references, I could predict overzealous bravado from the pages of Slashdot. But why are these child-like protests included in the official "open letters" being sent to mainstream press and directly to SCO's offices?
It embarasses me when I see the "luminaries" of the Open Source (and Free Software yadda) communities begging for attention with such antics. It just entrenches the world's view that all Linux users are immature, unwashed hacker bumpkins with Luke Skywalker style gadget belts, a DeCSS t-shirt, and a security-cracking Zaurus in hand.
IBM is the role-model here, as well as the champion of our battle. IBM has successfully married pin-stripes and rack-mounts. While we're not "passing our statements through IBM" and IBM isn't "orchestrating" our feedback, they surely could teach us something about effective and professional resistance to the legal challenges brought against Linux.
[
Unfortunately Darl McBride has shown he is, for lack of a better phrase, a friggin' nut case. This means it will be impossible to reason with him. He won't realize what a laughing stock he is until SCO lies in ruins and the stockholders have nothing left of value.
Like others have said, if the evidence shown so far is their best evidence, we don't have a damned thing to worry about, and in fact SCO will be found guilty of violating the BSD license.
Now, if you'll pardon me, I need to run to the bank and cash my check from IBM...
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
really is this just a troll or what? probably
does more damage to the open source community
then any good.
i mean was the guy drunk or something?
It makes "Flamebait" on slashdot seem "Insightful".
What we need is for someone to force SCO to reveal the allegedly infinging code - in public, not under NDA. Cannot someone get a ruling that, since it will have to be disclosed in court, it should be disclosed now?
... oops, already done. This is all in the works, and the court will amost certainly require the alleged code be revealed publicly within a few months. End of SCO.
... they will have to do so, and failure will result in contempt of court and/or fraud charges. I.e. if they don't reveal it to red hat when so ordered, and then try to use it in another court case, Darl et. al. will be having a deep, meaningful relationship with Bubba, compliments of their own contempt of court charges. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.00.
Que Red Hat
There is almost certainly no infringing code whatsoever. But, in the extraoridinarilly unlikely event (statistically indistinguishable from 0.0, I suspect) there is infringing code, it will be removed immediately upon revelation, and $CO will be able to collect on $0.00 damages, as they have done the exact opposite that the law requires (work to mitigate the damages), trying through deception and secrecy to maximize any damages. Which does not fly, even in these dismal times. Never has, probably never will, and certainly won't for SCO. Their hands are "dirty," the code they reference has already been declared public domain by a court of law in an earlier AT&T v. BSD case IIRC, and if not, comes from so many textbooks (including at least one that places no restrictions on reuse of the code) as to be common knowledge. Their "trade secrets" case is dead in the water, and they have no copyright case.
Red Hat has filed to force them to reveal the alleged code
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Take a blue pill, Eric. Who do you think you're speaking for? What is your "alliance" cooking up next? An 10% increase in the amount of outrage on Slashdot? 15% more "IANAL, but somewun shood sew SCO!!!!" posts? Ooh, how about a "yeah, us too, they're, like, bad men" rider on IBM or Red Hat's counter-suits?
I for one would really like to know what ESR and his OSI disciples are "cooking up". We've heard enough bullshit and veiled threats from SCO over this matter. I am simply not interested in being associated with someone prepared to lower himself to their level in that respect.
Put up or shut up, Eric. And while you're at it, don't drag Linus into this. He's a big boy, he can speak for himself.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
ESR has learned from SCO tactics. McBride & Company don't have to be honest, they are only press releases. They have only made simple breach of contract charges in court where things like lies are punishable.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
Actually I think someone should shut him up or give him some lessons on tact. Sure he's pissed of with SCO but we should be taking the high ground on this and not ranting and calling people names and having a go at a whole state just because that is where SCO are based.
Secondly his comments on this DoS attack on SCO are outragous, sure he might know who it was, but don't go bragging about it and don't associate the whole OSS movement by saying stupid things like this.
"He's one of us. He is part of the community around open source software and the Internet infrastructure and he's pretty senior," Raymond said.
Right, so what he's saying to a casual observer is that all OSS developers are vandals who resort to illegal acts when someone pisses them off just because they have the skills to do so.
You can mod me down for having a go at one of the open source figureheads, but he needs to think about the results of what he says before he says it.
Tom.
Probably because it would be good insurance for IBM if SCO did go after any of the end users. If SCO successfully starts collecting from end users, then SCO's case against IBM can't include an attempt at collecting damages. SCO can't collect damages twice, once from IBM and again from the users.
I hate to shatter your illusions, but IBM, like any profitable company, are interested in shareholder value, not karma. They are using and supporting open source because they see this approach as a good business model, not to usher in the age of aquarius. They won't provide legal support to linux users who are not their customers, because it will not increase shareholder value, either directly, or indirectly.
If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
Please. If you feel it necessary to post such an allegation, include a link to the page in question. It is unfair to assume we all know what you are talking about.
Coding Blog
I found nothing in there threatening anything other than the use of all legal and lawful means necessary.
The ones they should be taking away are the SCO executives who are clearly attempting to extort money from innocent Linux users and authors.
(and who modded up the parent troll?)
Coding Blog
There's lots of comments about how ESR "isn't speaking for me!" and shouldn't be lowering himself to the level of SCO's attacks. Frankly, I was refreshed and glad he said what he wrote for a couple of reasons.
One, it said what I've been thinking for ages -- you're screwing with the wrong community on this one. Some of you are going, "What? What community?" Maybe it's just me, but there is a large number of people, using open source, who basically have the same mindset about such things. No, we don't always agree, but that's our strength, not our weakness. Flexibility is more profitable than agreement. ESR's commentary is just playing back what a lot of us, maybe not all of us, but most of us have thought about SCO one time or another.
That being said, another reason is because in order to mobilize a community of anyone, you have to have inspiring people to "wake up" the masses and get them thinking in terms of defense, retaliation, protection. ESR's letter maybe be frank, bold, perhaps even cocky, but it gets the point across -- we're getting tired of this shit. Time to do something about it. Perhaps this won't mobilize anything and y'all will just stay reclined in your chairs sipping another Bawlz. But if it gets you on your feet asking what you can do to further the open source movement and defense, well...then the job is done.
You might not fully agree with ESR and you might think he's a pompous prick, even. But I think his point still rings true -- SCO is being a real dumbass and they're getting way annoying. Time that they put up or shut up, and if they don't, the community (for whatever that means) needs to start taking the stage to defend what we think is worth defending.
Blog,Twitter
Thanks for your comment, but you aren't "shattering my illusions". (Is there some kind of Slashdot mandate that to make a point you must actually insult whoever's comment you are addressing...?)
If you don't like the word "karma", fine, "goodwill" then. And I am quite aware IBM feels this is a good business model. That's self-evident. And it will increase shareholder value if it eliminates the impression of a cloud hanging over one of IBM's primary business initiatives.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
So SCO is perfectly entitled to make threats of legal action against people if they don't pay them money with no evidence but as soon as an OSS person makes a slightly veiled threat it is blackmail?????
We have no reason to think that this represents a threat of illegal action. He is just not showing your cards to try and get a response without anything concrete, like, oh let me think now, SCO.
I don't think there is anything in the letter that is illegal (IANAL), it is threatinging but cairfully worded. It is yet another call for SCO to play fair. It is strongly worded to try and get their attention. But then if you are on crack the only think that gets your attention is more crack.
McBride is a troll, plain and simple. Responses will only encourage him; personal responses even more so.
Seriously. His rhetoric is weak. This whole screed could have been summed up in the phrase, "there is no conspiracy against SCO, merely a group of people with a demonstrable common interest in overturning its policies."
But instead, it's a thousand-word, sophomoric rant accusing Darl McBride of being not as "smart" as people at IBM, boasting that he (Raymond) isn't afraid of lawyers, and topping it all off with that non sequitor about Utah.
It's just inflammatory. It takes a kernel of well-reasoned argument and wraps it up in several layers of immature hubris and bravado. I can't imagine this having any positive effect on anyone with a degree of pertinence in the case at hand; like much of his work, I suspect its real purpose is to inspire populist support and reinforcement for ESR's own ego.
I think the only thing I want to read by ESR from now on is fetchmail.
Personally, I think esr has done the right thing here. If someone threatened my family, my community (read OSS in this case) or myself then I would hold my ground and stand up. Too many people and organisations let others push them around.
Just because you can shout louder than everyone else doesn't make you right or a representative of the community as a whole. Linus calling McBride crazy is one thing. You making threats is just juvenile and an embarrasment to the rest of us. RMS doesn't try to pass himself off as a Linux representative, and he does a very good job of it.
The only vaguely physical threat, and I mean vaguely, is the thing about shooting out the horse. And that is so metaphorical that my 5 year old cousin could pick up on it.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
What scares me most is how, suddenly, the idea that we are somehow not allowed to speak out against just such corporations is becoming more and more common to the average Joe.
When did America become this country of limp wristed wussies who were afraid to speak their minds because they might be sued by some big corporation? Yeah, they might sue, and you might have to defend a lawsuit if what you speak is not the truth. What one must do to speak out on any given subject, including this one, is to educate oneself!
If you know more than the other guy and can only speak about the truth, what is there to fear?
Not exactly. ESR also intends this letter to servere explicit proof that it wasn't written by IBM then stamped by ESR. ESR intentionally didn't pull any slurs because each one proves it sources from the opinion of one man, not a behemoth of a company. And that's what you have to take away from this, too. The letter is not the voice acting of a representative (supporter, yes, representative, no), but as a single person. I think the letter acheives exactly what ESR wants it to achieve, and I appreciate him for writing it.
followed by
which could easily be a mob threat. Do you want your boss to see this in the press?
Or
We don't have official press releases or public relations departments for the Linux and open source community as a whole. I'm not saying there should be and ESR has the right, president of OSI or not, to make any comment he wishes. I just think that this type of thing does more harm than good.
If you know more than the other guy and can only speak about the truth, what is there to fear?
Well, how about:
Huge Legal Fees
Legal technicalities being used against you
The truth being inadmissable in court
Their lies being heard by the court as truth
There are many many things to fear. There is currently a man in Alabama speaking what he truly believes to be the truth. As of now his career is in jeopardy, he is being charged with breaking laws , and will likely lose his fight.
The biggest thing with the 10 commandments case in Alabama is that both sides believe they have the truth on their side. I can very easily see that McBride and co. think that the "truth" is on their side. In fact it would be required that they think this way, otherwise the label of "delusional" wouldn't be appropriate. And I belive that they truly are delusional about this case.
How many "gun nuts" do you know? Everyone I know who is a gun nerd, knows enough to only point the barrel at something they intend on shooting/killing. You must be a democrat.
Can you refer me to something that Eric has shot out of rage?
It's like characterizing all hackers as virus writing 18 year olds living in their parents basement. Most programmer, even with bad tempers don't write viruses; why should a gun nut with a bad temper be considered violent?
Joe
Joe Batt Solid Design
Ah, well. Raymond was worked up. His insult to the state, in my opinion, was unwarranted. But then again, why hasn't Utah's AG gone after McBride and gang. These guys are doing more damage to the tourist industry than they can imagine.
Right now we need strong language; we need people willing to put it on the line and kick business and government.
You're telling me this hotheaded rant is somehow a constructive contribution to the fray? I think I much prefer Linus' "smoking crack" comment (humorous, short, to the point) and the much more level-headed responses given by RMS and the FSF. I also very much appreciate Red Hat's contribution. ESR sounds like an angry 12-year-old.
I do not have a signature
If 32V were a BSD-derivative, it would presumably be subject to the same relicensing that Berkeley did for all the rest of it's software, and the new BSD license is sans advertising clause and GPL-compatible.
That rant pushes the edge of legal. One could definitely consider some of those words to be threats. I just hope they don't come to take him away. He's needed right now.
The letter does not contain threats; it contains facts. If SCO does not back down they are going to be in a world of hurt, because they have opened themselves up to all kinds of legal attacks and being cut off technilogically. Their major products are or depend on Free Software to work. If they were sued by the authors of the Free Software they are using for violating the licenses (which they are) and committing libel against the authors (which they are) they would be buried in lawsuits and unable to sell *anything.*
That is just the beginning. They are upsetting a lot of people who are responsible for purchasing decisions in companies and who probably will never buy SCO products again. They are angering a number of companies which will be filing suits against them as well as time wears on with this. (After all, they accused the entire computing world of piracy and demanded they "pay up" or face lawsuits...)
It could be argued that the officers of SCO are acting illegal as well. Blackmail, racketeering, fraud and that is just the beginning of the charges they could face.
Face it, the more a pain in the ass someone makes themselves the more likely it will be that people will agitate for them to pay for such crimes. Right now SCO is a serious pain and working to increase the volume. This factor will also play into whether Microsoft ends up getting punished (as they should) for paying SCO off and getting them to go this route in the first place (as they did).
I picked up some implied physical threats. But seeing as Eric's a gun aficionado, it's easy to see why. Hmm, deja vu.
Yes, the USA has come to quite a pass if actually believing in the Constitution means that you are a criminal. But the way things have been going, I would not be surprised. "Oh! He thinks we have the right to bear arms! That means he is going to kill me with his arsenal!"
For the record, I believe the second amendment gives us the right to own any weapon up to and including nuclear warheads, but I do not personally possess any unless perhaps you count the knives in my kitchen.
Are we viewing this whole situation too narrowly? We all know Microsoft wants Linux and the GPL discredited and that is why they "licensed" (ahem...opinion here, money laundering) SCO's intellectual property. But isn't this a two-front business war they are playing? Think about it. They provide the capital to fund SCO's drive to discredit Linux. But in turn, SCO has destroyed any corporate goodwill they might've had in the process, thus discrediting independent Unix (not tied to hardware, such as HP, IBM and Sun) as a solution. So in effect, Microsoft through its proxy combatant [SCO] is effectively hurting Linux AND Unix all at the same time. I understand now why Microsoft indemnified its customers, conveniently before SCO raised their asking price from $1 billion to $3 billion in the lawsuit against IBM...
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Very few people are. The Open Source exchange goes on around the world as much in spite of as because OSI. Any organization will ultimately be detrimental to two or more people working together WITHOUT supervision. No matter how good the intentions are, they will end up trying to impose undue influence and increase the noise-to-productivity ratio.
Whenever ANYTHING becomes popular, you'll find the organizers crawling out from the woodwork -- sometimes they were great contributers to the cause in the first place, and sometimes they weren't. Sometimes they're just besserwizzers who feel a call to "organize". However, they always tend to impose THEIR direction and add THEIR version of bureaucracy to something that doesn't need it in the first place.
I have full respect for Eric S. Raymond, but not as "President of OSI". That title, and all that goes with it, is just so much bovine faeces, and will only hurt open software in the long run. Like it does right now, when companies like SCO believes he has any mandate at all to speak for every programmer that work with open source, or has done so in the past. Let's hope that the courts don't make the same mistake.
If SCO has a beef with code I've written, I want them to come to ME. Not to OSI, not to Red Hat, not to EFF, and not to IBM. They don't speak for me. My code is between me and the people I shared it with, and these "leaders" don't rank any higher on that list than you do. Probably less, cause you may have time to use the code, and provide valuable feedback, instead of being bound up in "organizing".
If you want to be represented by Eric Raymond, John P. Barlow or anyone else, it's up to you. Just don't assume that they speak for everyone.
Get off my back, monkey -- I don't WANT to be organized or spoken for. Not by you, nor anyone else.
--
*Art
Calling someone an asshole is not libelous just as saying "Microsoft sucks" is not libelous. In order to be libel what you write must be a statement of fact, not a statement of opinion. In the eyes of the law, calling someone an asshole is a matter of opinion, not fact. If you say that someone has genital warts, that would be a statement of fact. The statement can be proven, or disproven, in a court of law. If it turns out that the person in question does have genital warts, then you are clear again since libel only applies to falsehoods. Of course, your target may sue you anyway for publically disclosing private information. I hope this clarifies the issue for you. Good day.
SCO has been doing their best to get their legal disputed tried in every venue except a court of law where they know they'll loose. If ESR had simply said, "I disagree with Darl McBride and SCO," there would be no press coverage whatsoever. What he has done, instead, is to fire off a equal but opposite inflamatory rant to match the spewage from Lindon, UT. There is no threat contained in his rant other than that SCO will wish their ex-ambulance chaser management team hadn't provoked the open source community. More precisely, there is no threat of either physical violence or illegal action and thus, nothing illegal.
It is an excellent rant though.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
ESR's already done the serious bit. The OSI's latest document, written by Rob Landley and ESR, is such an awesome, sober, closely reasoned demolition of the SCO legal complaint that you would imagine IBM could just write "MOTION TO DISMISS" at the top of it and stick it in the mail.
The useful value of this amusing rant is that it potentially widens the audience. Because it's extreme and amusing it get passed around and will be seen by people who aren't going to click a headline to read the technical details.
This could have material value. There is a general assumption that when a company like SCO makes public statements, those statements have a reasonable amount of truth in them. That assumption's what's been keeping SCO's stock price up. If it becomes common water-cooler chatter that Darl McBride is a paranoid loony, then those ordinary business types are going to be a little more inclined to check the facts before believing the press releases.
If SCO's stock price were to collapse under a weight of disbelief, the backers would get cold feet and the whole problem could disappear.
I wish he'd think about them a bit more, though.
His first letter to SCO had a lot of good material in it, but the whole 'Who owns Unix, anyway?' section was embarassingly off-topic and completely undermined the rest of the paper and the open source movement, making it look like justification for wholesale piracy. Some people in the community may think that way, but we all don't, and don't care for the attention paid to ESR's views.
This new message is not a step towards the high road.
Then again, relative to parts of Europe (explicite genocide), Africa and Asia, our respect for the individual has limited our violence. (Native Americans died off pretty quickly here, but I don't think that it was the will of the majority. It is "our" fault anyway.) Forced annexation isn't violent, otherwise Indianapolis and Fort Wayne are in a lot of trouble. Forced eemigration can be violent. Which European and Asian powers have we ever instigated violence against?
Having weapons is not violent. You can't argue that ESR having guns makes him a nut by claiming that the US is violent and has nukes. StackOverflowError
I'm also from a part of the country where I don't expect unjustified physical violence like a drive by shooting or mugging (partly because lots of folks carry guns and a mugger will get shot in the back).
I personally have never encountered "gang violence like drive-by shootings, muggings, armed robbery, thrill-killing, killing of people because they are in a neighbourhood with the wrong skin pigmentation, domestic and foreign terrorism". An interesting page of statics can be found at http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html
On a larger scale, the FBI sums up our recent terror attacks as
So, over the last 20 years or so, we have less than 3,000 deaths due to terrorism. Last year alone, we lost 43,000 people to auto accidents. Yes. I am more afraid of driving down the street than being killed by a terrorist. duh.
Joe
Joe Batt Solid Design
That's a very strange reading of that article.
The key point of the article is that he is speaking against a particular killing of police officer. Raymond condemns the killer as a murderer. He's making this point in contrast with his view that it might be acceptable to kill a police officer in certain circumstances. Those aren't "fantasies," that's someone who is thinking about his own moral boundaries. It's not really fair to give a blanket label to an activity as wrong unless you've considered what you would do in every possible similar situation. Take something as straight forward as terrorism. Lots of people are eager to say the terrorism is never acceptable. However, if your home country was successfully invaded by a hostile power and your military defeated, would you be willing to strike back covertly to try and free your country? Similarly, if you're an American, do you believe that vandalism and property destruction for political purposes is never, ever acceptable? If so, do you object to the Boston Tea Party? Even if you decided that all of these cases are wrong, the point is that you need to seriously think about them with you as the potential subject.
After discussing many of the possible cases in which he would shoot a law officer or military member, Raymond specifically notes "But the United States of America has not yet reached the point at which the political mechanisms for the defense of freedom have broken down. This judgment is not a matter of theory but one of practice. There are not yet police at our door with legal orders to round up the Jews, or confiscate pornography or computers or guns."
Raymond has clearly thought about these issues regarding violence against government. This isn't the paranoid rantings of madman, it's someone putting forth his ethics on the matter. He's clearly thought the matter through and decided where his lines are. I don't entirely agree with Raymond's positions, but his positions are well reasoned. The sense I get from the article is that this is someone who is very rational, someone who doesn't hide from uncomfortable ideas, someone I could understand.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
This draft of his rant is certainly better than previous versions but let me recount all the reasons I'd rather ESR stop being THE spokesman for the open source community:
1. I'm really uncomfortable when he uses the term "my people". The wording suggests someone on a power trip and I sure wish he would stop acting like he speaks for everyone in the open source community. This latest rant sure doesn't reflect the kind of rhetoric I want the open source community to be putting out at this point.
2. In a previous draft he threw out his juvenile infatuation with being a Jedi knight, AGAIN. Its not cool for someone ESR's age engaged in a deadly serious debate to dredge up a juvenile ego trip. I wish ESR would buy a copy of Star Wars Galaxies and vent his star wars fixation in semi-private. Since Lucas started the prequels he pretty much trashed the whole franchise anyway. To keep using references to it in the real world doesn't work.
3. Slamming Utah as a whole for the dementia of SCO is really inappropriate. I'm pretty sure a lot of open source enthusiasts live there and detest SCO as much as anyone. It conveys a classic arrogant Califnorian/New Yorker viewpoint where the entire middle of North America is a wasteland you fly over to get someplace important and rational like California. Oh wait minute.... California.... rational????
4. When was ESR appointed emperor of the open source community. Can we have a recount. When is the next election so I can vote for Bruce Perens. His rebuttal to SCO was well researched, factual and valuable versus ESR's juvenile rant which does more harm than good.
5. As I recall ESR was a key player and board member in the VA Research/Linux/Software. Apart from giving options to open source developers that company doesn't strike me has having been well managed and the board is responsible.
6. ESR's threats in his latest rant are hollow. If there was a real leader heading OSI they would have started a legal fund, acquired a good lawyer and filed a suit to get a cease and desist order against SCO already. The should being taken substantive action to stop SCO's protection scam and their defamatory rhetoric against innocent people like Jay Schulister. Thats what OSI should be doing and not engaging in public ranting and threats. SCO's already patented that strategy.
I'll give you that to a certain extent... but if you would read your history books, you'd find that this nation was founded by people who had the balls to speak out against what the disagree with. Not to Hide In Secrecy [hint, AC], or to be stripped of their GOD GIVEN rights?
Anyone who is not willing to stand up for their rights is in opposition. Anyone who trembles in fear is a traitor. Cowards are our enemy. I say to you "Rid yourself of these Shackles" free your mind from those who would take it from you!
Before I get branded as a Zelot, Are you Friend or FoeThe Geek in Black
I know my BCD's (when I'm Sober)
Actually, yes.
I disdain the entire concept that you should be cold and dispassionate when someone is calling you a liar and a thief. Right now, the only voice most businesses (and individuals) hear is SCO's; to change this, we have to shout louder.
SCO won't win in court and they know that, so they make a big fuss and call attention to themselves. That's fine--let's put attention on them by loudly announcing they (and not us) are the liars and thieves, that they have no case, that they are attempting this solely to pump and dump stock.
We need strong language.
Someone asked if I had patched against MSBlast; I said yes, I installed Linux.
The Judge in Alabama is ignoring a court order. He took his case to court and lost. This is not at all comparable to simply voicing your opinion.
Anarchists never rule
The "Christians" as you mean it (I am assuming right wing fundies) did not "make this nation". Your founding fathers were VERY concerned about SEPERATING state and religion. Many of the people coming to the "New World" were fleeing state sponsored religious persecution in Europe. The founders of the USA were intelligent, forward thinkers, who firmly believed in religious freedom for ALL people - not just one sect of Christians. To make sure that the state did not drift into an official state religion (which invariably leads to problems) they put many safeguards into the USA constitution to keep the state and church seperate. The judge in Alabama is breaching this seperation.
Anarchists never rule
I'm hearing this constant buzz, "Reason will prevail!"
I have some news for you folks. Not everyone can be reasoned with. Period. They are fanatics, lunatics, and criminals. The last thing on Darl McBride's mind is being reasonable.
So tell me, how do you reason with a person that refuses to listen to logic?
The answer?
You don't. You lock them in prison and throw away the key. Or you put a bullet in their head.
As for Darl McBride, I think prison is enough. As for Bin Laden and Hussein, well, you tell me.
Now. . . Back to the reasoning behind ESR's righteous indignation:
The problem with calm, reasoned rebuttals, is that Joe Sixpack is going to ignore it. It's boring. It's not Monday Night Football.
ESR is rightfully pissed off! And he has quite eloquently displayed that. He is making it absolutely clear how absurd he believes SCO's behavior is. And he's done it in such a way that it won't likely be ignored.
This is a battle over intellectual property and all we have to defend our position is words. So are we gonna drone out the usual, "Reason will prevail!" and hope it all magically comes out okay? Or are we gonna kick some ass?
Moekandu
"The object is not to bring you enemy to his knees, but his senses." - Ghandi
"Sometimes that requires a slap in the face." - Moekandu's Addendum
Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself; but talent instantly recognizes genius. -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Unless of course you disagree with the govt:)