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!' "
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.
I don't think IBM's support or possible covert actions in aiding Open Source is any kind of problem at all. This reminds me of the views of some when Red Hat originally started charging significant money for their Linux distro; there was a minor outcry that they were profiting off of Open Source, and that this was suspect.
To use a "software evangelism" analogy, look at all the various religions out there. In any given one, you'll find a bunch of factions/denominations that do not fully agree with one another, and that are of varying size and influence. Does this weaken their movement, overall? No. What it does is broaden the appeal of the religion for people of differing views, and keeps the debate alive internally which is crucial for their vitality.
Having a variety of companies out there that are on the spectrum of non-profit to small-profit to big-profit is no issue at all, as long as none of them can take over the work for the purposes of excluding everyone else.
On a related note, regarding IBM, I'm wondering why they don't take the position of offering legal counsel to (at least some of) the users currently being threatened by SCO. While it's completely understandable that they aren't going to provide complete indemnity (arbitrary claims such as SCO's times millions of deployments could theoretically come to basically infinity dollars), supporting the users who are currently being attacked by SCO would give IBM major karma points with the Open Source community, as well as giving them the opportunity to force SCO into revealing more about their alleged case. And, quite possibly, with the legal bills SCO would rack up defending a countersuit from all the users they've threatened, just implode them before the case ever gets to trial. This would be good for IBM and Open Source.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
There is a basic problem with open source
software - great though the idea is in
principle - there is nothing to stop someone
sneaking in some (C) code, then later standing
up (maybe under a different persona) and sueing
everyone for breach of copyright.
Ok, thats not *exactly* whats happened
here - but you get my drift.
Perhaps some sort of special legal protection
is needed - in the same way charities enjoy
a special status..
Code declared to be "public" must be posted
to special government sanctioned database.
Anyone who thinks and can prove breach of
(C) can apply for their code to be removed from
the database, but will not be able to sue for
copyright breach for anyone using it for the
duration it is posted (plus some nominal period
of, say, 2 months or something like that)
Just my 2 cents..
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
The last paragraph is worded so strongly, especially the bit about fraud and IP theft, you can't help but wonder if some unnamed soul hasn't laid their hands on a copy of SCO's code and found GPL'ed code in it. The Linux personality module comes to mind.
... isn't Microsoft on SCO's side? Aren't they the ones really 'pulling the strings' of the SCO puppets?
Its okay for 'us' to say "Microsoft is the machiavellian lord behind the scenes of the SCO front", but not for SCO to say it about IBM...
I dunno. I think its about time Herd was released.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11208
He made a comment near the end of the article about "serving my people". While I admire ESR for his single-minded zealotry, I also fear that same single-minded zealotry.
I'm glad someone is out there fighting for What's Right, but agreeing with ESR on this topic doesn't automatically make me one of "his people".
Does it?
-sharv
[troll]
Did AT&T Unix 32V fall into the public domain? The judge said "Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a likelihood that it can successfully defend its copyright in 32V".
What if SCO's Microsoft-funded strategy is not to FUD Linux, but to revisit that decision and show that 32V did not fall into the public domain, but *became in fact a derivative work of BSD?*
SCO claims to have contracts with IBM that entitle it to incorporate that companies code into its operating systems. We have made fun of such claims, but we haven't seen the contracts. Perhaps SCO really has that right.
Could SCO be trying to show that Linux is also a derivative work of BSD, and thus BSD-licensed (non-GPL encumbered?)
[/troll]
Actually, Mr Raymond pointed out in his letter that Linus Torvalds supports his comments:
/.
"Linus Torvalds is backing me on this..."
If you don't want him speaking for you, that is easy to solve. Set up a website, write an open letter with your own opinions or proposals, and send a link to
Fools, because too many of you don't know, care, or realize, just how important this right is.
You could've hired me.
Personally, I suspect that there really is infringing code. And that it's not significant. But I also suspect that Unixware has infringing code. Much more centrally located.
Question, though: If SCO could be forced to GPL Unixware, would we want it? Does it have any advantages at all? Perhaps the best we can hope for is that Red Hat get lawyers fees and damages. (And SCO goes bankrupt.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
or so they claim.
Consider that by publically announcing that he's planning an action, he may be defusing some hot-heads who would otherwise act on their own.
... castigate ... those who act out unwisely. But to be effective he has to seem someone that they *should* identify with. So perhaps a bit of what's going on is role-playing. It's a diverse community, so it needs a diverse set of "leaders", i.e., people who are trusted. ESR is the community's designated "leader of hotheads". And he seems to play the part quite responsibly. (Yes, he's also a guardian in ideological purity. The roles seem to go together rather well.)
I think ESR will be a bit careful about anything that he actually proposes. And that he will
Remember, the community is diverse. Some people follow Linus, some follow ESR. Nobody follows all that closely. Who's your choosen spokesman? Personally I find Linus more emotionally appealing, but I clearly recognize that ESR is a pivotally important character. It's his stand on ideological purity that have safeguarded us many times in the past. Because of his past advocacy, the undermining of the community can't be done through license pollution, but needs to proceed though a FUD campaign, that's been rather unsuccessful. (And we need to be very thankful that IBM has decided that we are safer to play with than MS is. Otherwise we'd be killed by patents. As it is... IBM may just have said "Don't think about it" to certain other parties.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I didn't really consider what he wrote to be a physical threat to anyone, though it's certainly a legal gauntlet he's thrown down (or rather picked up, since SCO is the one who initiated this legal mess).
ESR has written some faily provocative material, but I think he's really trying to provoke thought, rather than violence. He's a self-proclaimed "gun nut," but why does that worry anyone? He's never used a weapon on anyone that I'm aware of, and until he shows a proclivity towards unjustifiable lethal violence, it's difficult to justify any sort of sanction. Prior restraint, whether physical or intellectual, is hardly justifiable in this instance. It's also worth remembering that violence is not always the wrong path (here come the pacifist flames), despite what they are teaching in school these days.
For example: his article on "when to shoot a policeman." At first blush, this kind of thing immediately raises my antennae; I used to be an LEO, of the tactical-team variety. If anyone's likely to be a target for killing, it would be a fellow like myself... yet I didn't find the article terribly alarming. He actually argues AGAINST the killing of policemen, except in very extreme circumstances (total breakdown of civil liberties... where the police become a tool of tyranny). Frankly, I'm glad people like ESR feel passionately about their rights, and are willing to defend tham... civil rights are what separates the US from the world of brutal dictatorial regimes. Frankly, if I were a policeman under such conditions, I would give up my badge; I would not be party to gratuitious abrogation of the rights of others... THEIR loss of rights is MY loss of rights. This might come as a surprise to some Slashdotters, but virtually all the cops I've ever known were able to make that intellectual leap.
Most LEOs would never be a part of such wholesale represssion. Such atrocity creates an unholy bond between the masters and their agents, one that binds them to the same fate, usually a bloody one. ESR simply states a willingness to use the "final option" against a repressive, tyrannical government. This discussion may make people, myself included, uncomfortable, but discussions about revolution are hardly comfortable things. Now personally, I would look a bit askance at an individual who considered mass violence, societal upheaval, revolution, and bloodshed comfortable everyday topics... yet some simple intellectual discourse about such things should not be cause for sanction. ESR may be a strange guy, but I respect his intellect, and trust that he knows the difference between philosophical debate and action.
But back to the topic at hand, I actually liked his letter to McBride. Some people will no doubt attack it as juvenile... I thought it was hilarious.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Are we talking market value?
Then yes, image effects market value. Apparently this has not hit SCO yet, but it will....believe me.
Are we talking about actual sales?
Then yes, image effects sales. I think this has already hit SCO, which is why sueing is the only way to make money.
Thinking otherwise is to say that the whole PR-business is built on false premises.
$hit! It is, isn't it?
Has anyone considered the idea that perhaps they are going to amend the open source software definition to allow discrimination against SCO?
Imagine the case that Samba, for instance, was GPL except for SCO, which would have an outrageous licensing fee. Seems like FSF floated that idea already with GCC, didn't they? SCO *has* to use Samba, but can they afford to do development on it themselves?
What if all software packages changed licenses to a "GPL but for SCO" license. That means SCO could only use software up to the license change, and make modifications and improvements themselves. What would their cost be for that? And wouldn't that show other companies that the free software community can't be messed with?
Dunno, but the FSF floating that idea makes me think thats perhaps what ESR is referring to.
SCO sued IBM in March, claiming that the Armonk, N.Y., company had inappropriately contributed code to the Linux operating system in violation of a Unix licensing contract that IBM had signed with AT&T but that had later been transferred to SCO. In May, Novell claimed that it, and not IBM, had the rights to the Unix source code -- a claim it later retracted.
Novell never retracted their claim to own the UNIX license. What happened was when Novell pointed out publicly that they owned the license to UNIX and SCO had been asking them to sell it to them, SCO produced an addendum to the contract which they said transferred the license. Novell pointed out that their copy of the contract never contained that addendum, but has not said anything since. Later SCO published the quoted sentence almost verbatim in a press release (IIRC it was a quote from Darl McBride) and the press has been plagiarizing it ever since.
I would be willing to bet hat the Novell lawyers are feverishly tryingto figure out the following:
1) in this wacky world of law, can "double secret" addendums be considered legal?
2) How far does the Judge's imagination need to stratch for this?
3) Does the contract say itself anything about addendums?
4) Where did this addendum come from?
5) Can they punish SCO legally for fabricating the addendum?
Can you think of anyone who every stood for ideological purity who didn't have pronounced flaws? I sure can't (except for a few mythological types).
At least ESR isn't likely to start burning heretics.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I think equating "independent Unix" with "SCO" is naive at best. The software that SCO actually sells hasn't been a credible player in a decade. Unixware was actually fairly nice, but recent versions have been thoroughly tainted by the inconceivably horrid legacy SCO code base. If SCO has any corporate goodwill it's only among people who haven't actually been forced to use their products...
SCO stock probably went up because the analysts looked at some cards with code samples. The analysys probably said, "looks like the same stuff, so thereforce SCO will win -- UPGRADE"
Problem is that many analysyts are not worth a sack of S___. They don't understand all of the issues - they're just trying to make a quick buck for their company and investors. The sad truth is that once something is reported as news on Marketwatch or CNBC or Bloomberg, it no longer matters whether the information is accurate or correct - the stocks move.
Movement in the stock market is not driven by facts, technology, or capabilities -- it's driven by speculation and opinions.
The stock market is just a game who's rules change as fast as the technology the traders use does.
I read some research recently that said a widening of opinion on a stock will generally drive up the price, because the price is set by the people who are prepared to pay a premium because they think it's worth it. So maybe the SCO faithful are buying in post SCO forum.
It's also unusual for shorting to have much of an effect, because it's usually too small a volume.
As an aside, SCO's market cap is currently about $200M, so if they were to win $1B against IBM, wrange Red Hat into a deal and get SCOsource off the ground, say their market cap went up to $2B - doesn't that mean the market thinks they've got about a 10% chance of winning that much.
Sounds overpriced to me, I'd give them a 1-3% chance of winning against IBM. If the stock goes much above 15$, I'd definitely consider a punt.