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 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.
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.