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!' "

Comments

Eric should be more careful

[Hamfist]

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.

Re:Eric should be more careful

[Seth Finklestein]

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.

Re:Eric should be more careful

[Faggot]

ESR is threatening to use every legal means available to fight SCO. that's legal, justified, implied and expected.

Re:Eric should be more careful

[brlancer]

I didn't see any physical threats, which is really what you have to worry about.

Right now we need strong language; we need people willing to put it on the line and kick business and government.

Re:Eric should be more careful

[Seth Finklestein]

As long as the letter is to an individual in re his position as a company executive, it is still subject to free speech provisions. In Voight v. Harbiller (search for it on Lexis/Nexis) our fabled McDonald's crusader was sued by Leslie Voight, McDonald's VP of Marketing. Voight alleged that Harbiller tried to threaten her in his letter that was delivered to her house. Guess who won?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. You can't buy your way out of the first amendment.

Re:Eric should be more careful

[LinuxGeek]

That rant pushes the edge of legal.

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.

Re:Eric should be more careful

[Grax]

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.

Re:Eric should be more careful

[Grax]

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?)

Re:Eric should be more careful

[Anonymous Coward]

SCO dragging him into court? Their whole gameplan revolves around not going to court but jacking up the out of court deal value.

A libel or slander case would be ideal for getting the truth exposed. Not going to happen.

Re:Eric should be more careful

[jez_f]

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.

Re:Eric should be more careful

[Planesdragon]

Go on, defend my right to say that. Smile as you do it.

That's easy. There's no real threat, because you presumably don't know who Seth is or where he lives, and you very likely don't have a gang.

If you did have a gang, and you did know who Seth was, it would only be unprotected speach if there wasn't a context that caused the insinuated action to be a legal one. Talking about possible legal proceedings, for example...

Re:Eric should be more careful

[maxume]

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.

Re:Eric should be more careful

[Eggplant62]

just because you disagree with a company, that doesn't make you a "threat."

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?

Re:Eric should be more careful

[JWW]

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.

Re:Eric should be more careful

[Lonath]

Although I wish Eric would be more clear about what he's planning next.

He has definite, serious and well-thought-out plans afoot for SCO. However, he can't reveal them publicly or SCO will find ways to counter the plans. OTOH, if you want to find out what those plans are, you can sign an NDA and see bits and pieces of his plans so you'll know how cool and 31337 they are and how much SCO should really ph33r those plans.

Re:Eric should be more careful

[rifter]

I think the point with the guns was a bit off, (after all, I have access to the internet, I could download a copy of the anarchist's cookbook and make a bomb, that doesn't make me a terrorist).

No, using Linux is what makes you a terorist! :)

Re:Eric should be more careful

[ichimunki]

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.

Re:Eric should be more careful

[rifter]

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).

Re:Eric should be more careful

[rifter]

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.

Re:Eric should be more careful

[rifter]

What? his threat to shot McBride's "high horse" out from under him??? His threat that he "will not like" what we're cooking up for him? Analogies and references.

Sure! He threatened to kill Bill Gates! :)

Re:Eric should be more careful

[arth1]

And besides that the letter serves no purpose. It adds nothing new nor constructive. It just feels like he is babbling for attention and I am not one of "his people".

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

Re:Eric should be more careful

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Eric should be more careful

[Lead Butthead]

With all the paranoia surrounding terrorist attack, I am just waiting for McBride to accuse the community as group of terrorists...

Re:Eric should be more careful

[ChaosDiscord]

When to Shoot a Policeman, the last story on the page.

Yes, he is being extremist here, but it's scary that he flaunts these kinds of fantasies. From reading his "armedndangerous" site, he comes across as a lunatic just looking and waiting for an excuse to get to shoot someone.

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.

Re:Eric should be more careful

[Anonymous Coward]

Darl McBride has a raging case of genital warts.

Re:Eric should be more careful

[Requiem]

When did America become this country of limp wristed wussies

Probably at about the same time Dr. Elders was fired as surgeon general for her comments on masturbation.

I think we have strayed from the teachings of Devo:

When a problem comes along
You must whip it
Before the cream sits out too long
You must whip it
When something's going wrong
You must whip it

now whip it
into shape
shape it up
get straight
go forward
move ahead
try to detect it
it's not too late
to whip it
whip it good

When a good time turns around
You must whip it
You will never live it down
Unless you whip it
No one gets their way
Until they whip it

I say whip it
Whip it good

Re:Eric should be more careful

[EnigmaticSource]

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 Foe

Re:Eric should be more careful

[brlancer]

You're telling me this hotheaded rant is somehow a constructive contribution to the fray?

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.

Re:Eric should be more careful

[canadian_right]

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.

Re:Eric should be more careful

[canadian_right]

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.

Re:Eric should be more careful

[MrLint]

Unless of course you disagree with the govt:)

.. and Halloween 9

[eddy]

First off, I think he sounds moronic with those StarWars references, secondly, there's a relevant Halloween 9 out.

SCO's in for a fight

[RealRav]

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.

Re:SCO's in for a fight

[RealRav]

I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find someone who's contributed code to linux and doesn't have it installed on a desktop somewhere. It's still their code and they're still proud of it.

Dreams are better as dreams than reality.

Re:SCO's in for a fight

[pohl]

Until they graduate, and they realize that there are better things to do than sit around and code all the fucking time.

Well, it's true that one could compose music, paint, sculpt, write a novel, make furniture, build a house, tend a garden, etc. But I wouldn't say those things are necessarily better.

Re:SCO's in for a fight

[majorflaw]

You are assuming that causing confusion among companies choosing between M$ and Open Source is *not* the real purpose of the suit. As I see it, M$ doesn't have anything new coming out for 2 years; what better way to "freeze" the market until then.

More independent thinking

[VernonNemitz]

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.

Re:More independent thinking

[TopShelf]

Since last Wednesday, SCO has risen by about 40%. No particular news has come out, and the volume, while above average, hasn't exactly been blockbuster. Hard to say what's happening here, really. With only 13.1 million shares outstanding, it wouldn't take a whole ton of activity to drive the price rapidly in one direction or another...

Re:More independent thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason (at least, as I understand it) is that all those people (mostly /.ers, probably) who went short on SCO stock a month ago have now had to buy it back at whatever price it's at currently, thus driving up the price in the market.

SCO's death knell is coming, yes, but not so soon that it's a good idea to short them willy-nilly. The price will just go down, then back up. Wait 'til the trial starts... that's when it'll go down and stay down :)

Re:More independent thinking

[mhesseltine]

Eh? Why have they had to buy it back?

Basic stock trading lesson: When you short sell a stock, you essentially borrow the stock at its current price, with the understanding that at a particular time, you will buy it back at whatever price. If the stock goes down, you make money (because you borrowed at the higher valuation.) However, if the stock rises, then you have to buy it at the current valuation, and thus you lose money.

It's risky because if you do a regular trade, the most you can lose is what you paid for the stock. When you short, there is no theoretical limit as to how high the stock can go, therefore no limit as to how much you could lose. (Yes, I am aware of "put" options that can be used like an insurance against losing too much money.)

Re:More independent thinking

[MarkusQ]

SCO stock is non marginable.

you can't sell it short.

Uh, wrong. It'a a $5/30% issue, which could be quite profitable to short at it's present (~$15/share) price. Be sure to have enough cash on hand to make sure you don't get caught by a short squeeze (and make sure you understand what a short squeeze is) before you try it. Do the math (fire up gnumeric or open office) and be sure you understand what will happen to your position under various conditions (like, what if it shoots up to $20 in a day? $25?) know what your plan is for these sorts of situations before you start.

Happy hunting!

-- MarkusQ

P.S. Don't be put off by the "shorting is un-american" blather. We need a healthy market, not another bubble. That means we need a market in which solid issues rise and the crap gets driven into the basement as quickly as posible. The people who equate unfettered growth of every moronic company that pimps their stock with health are either stupid, working on commission, or both.

Re:More independent thinking

[TopShelf]

His question, which was a good one, is why short sellers would close out their positions over the last week. The basic gist was that a short squeeze wasn't a likely cause of the recent SCOX runup (with which I agree).

Also, it's a call option that would provide some protection for the short seller. It guarantees a set purchase price that they can use in the event of a rapid rise in the stock they've shorted.

Re:More independent thinking

[neillewis]

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.

Guess what McBride

[BiteMeFanboy]

... in case you've got corporate drones scanning /.. We are all out to get you. We all want to see you go down in flames. You're a waste of sperm and egg. You brought this on yourselves and increasingly wild accusations are only increasing the opposition against you.

So us all a favor. Drop the suit, dissolve the company, and walk off with your ill-gotten public opinion manipulated profits.

Duplicate :-(

[grandmofftarkin]

The exact same response found in the link provided in this new story can also be found in the final link update in the old story. See Update: 08/22 18:26 GMT by M: ESR responds. Hence this is a duplicate.

Stronger spectra

[Empiric]

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.

Re:Stronger spectra

[AlecC]

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.

I don't think that would be good for Open Source: it would leave a shadow over the Linux for evermore. Anothe set of lawyer-ghouls could always buy the rights from the deceased SCO and start again. We need to get this to court and settled as fast as possible.

Two possible outcomes:
1. No infringment. Burn, SCO, burn
2. Infringement. The infringing code is dropped fast, and the Linux community rewrites it fast. SCO says this is not possible. I think that that the OS Community - at Warp Factor 10 - could do it in three months. A fine for IBM - which won't kill them. Linux carries on with FUD removed.

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?

Re:Stronger spectra

[mcgroarty]

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.

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.

Re:Stronger spectra

[kinnell]

supporting the users who are currently being attacked by SCO would give IBM major karma points with the Open Source community

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.

Re:Stronger spectra

[Empiric]

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.

Friday August 23 2003 or Friday August 20 2003???

[mgessner]

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.

Protecting open source software..

[adeyadey]

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..

Re:Protecting open source software..

[gregor_b_dramkin]

There is a basic problem with open source software [] there is nothing to stop someone sneaking in some (C) code, then later [] sueing everyone for breach of copyright.

How is this different from any other public forum?

Suppose I posted copyrighted songs on a website. The record labels could not sue the ISP, unless the ISP was unresponsive or negligent. The offending files would be identified and removed. The RIAA might then sue me for putting them there in the first place, but IMHO they'd have a right to do so.

The nature of the copyright infringement in the music example is very similar to the alleged SCO material. Individuals contributing content to a larger body of work are each responsible for their own contributions.

The difference is that SCO is saying, "There's copyrighted stuff somewhere on your ISP. Everyone who's ever seen your website owes us a hundred bucks, or we'll shut it down. Don't worry your pretty little head about the details. Trust us. There's a copyright infringement in there somewhere."

The reason that SCO has not disclosed the nature of offending code is that they know their case would immediately crumble. Any code that they could stake a claim to would be rewritten a few hours after disclosure.

If there is copyrighted code in the kernel, then whomever put it there is legally responsible. If they did it as part of their duties while working at IBM, then IBM may also be culpable. But NOT every person who ever used Linux!!!

I read this a couple of days ago...

[Lodragandraoidh]

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?

Re:I read this a couple of days ago...

[Rogerborg]

>Eric only said what is on the mind of everyone in the free software/open source movement.

Speak for yourself. I'd rather that he didn't speak for me, nor for Linus. I'm not minded to lower myself to SCO's level by making vague "Why I oughta..." threats. By making that threat, he's just given SCO more ammunition for their paranoid ravings. Nice one.

Re:I read this a couple of days ago...

[47PHA60]

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 /.

Re:I read this a couple of days ago...

[47PHA60]

I think you're being too sensitive. You imply that Raymond is lying or obfuscating in some way, or that he is "pretending" to speak for everyone. For all we know he emailed Mr Torvalds and said, "I am going to write this and that," and the response was "Go for it. I like your writing, and have confidence to back you all the way."

If Raymond does not have Linus Torvalds' backing, this is free speech; he can speak up and say "I did not tell Eric Raymond to speak for me, and these are my real opinions." This is just what Richard Stallman did when SCO quoted him as saying "Linux is ... a copy of UNIX." He wrote an article saying "I never said that; here is what I really say and think."

As for the "vaguely sinister threat," what is "sinister?" All I read was a promise that the open source community will not tolerate SCO's smears. The response may be coordinated research exposing SCO's weak case, or the copyright holders on Linux/GNU software excercising their rights to revoke SCO's right to distribute their software under part 4 of the GPL. It could be a formal complaint to the SEC about SCO's pump and dump scheme. But, Raymond has specifically said that the figtht will be won legally.

I think you need to switch to decaf, meditate for at least ten minutes a day, and stop worrying about Linus; he is quite capable of looking out for himself. If you think Raymond is speaking for you and you don't like it, send him an e-mail or write an open letter of your own.

For example, I sent ESR an email because of concerns I had about an article I read (in which he offered to sign a 'looser NDA with SCO'), and he responded that day, saying that he did not know what the article's author was talking about; he had never offered to sign an NDA. The point is, I'm nobody in the open/free software community, and Raymond took the time to respectfully respond to my concerns. I don't think he's in it for power and glory.

Rant-a-liscious

[curtisk]

I'd ask if you'd found the right sort of isolated wasteland for your citadel of dread yet, but that would be a silly question; you're in Utah, after all.

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.

Look out McBride!

[Phantasmo]

Yes, I cheerfully refer to myself as a gun nut. Because after I've done that myself, idiots can't bash me with the phrase. Since it doesn't take most people very long to notice that I am not in fact crazy, this maneuver has the effect of discrediting the idiots.
- Eric S. Raymond

Woah... the last thing I'd want after me is a pissed-off hacker with an AK-47.

Re:Look out McBride!

[arcanumas]

AK47 ? what. No BFG8000?
After all , don't you need an imaginary gun to fight imaginary crimes? (like those claimed by Mr. McBrideOfSatan?)

Re:Special story submitter ?

[WeeBull]

A few years back, the top science teaching facility in Norway considered changing its name to the "Norwegian University of Technology and Science". They reconsidered when they realised they'd be NUTS.

Similar story occurred in England, too, when Northumbria University considered changing its name to "Cumbria University, Northumbria and Tyneside" ...

A shorter nick?

[SuperBanana]

What Can You Expect From A University Named "UH?"

A, uh, shorter nick? :-)

Utah??

[dereklam]

I'd ask if you'd found the right sort of isolated wasteland for your citadel of dread yet, but that would be a silly question; you're in Utah, after all.

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.

Re:Utah??

[Jaysyn]

Heh, speaking of DDOSing SC0...

Someone beat us to it

Jaysyn

I I tell everybody how SCOs claim is ludicrous...

[winkydink]

...can I get a check from IBM too? Anybody know what benefits I get once I'm on payroll? Medical? 401k? Do I Have to wear a tie?

Perceptions

[LinuxGeek]

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.

IBM is making everyone hate us!

[JSkills]

Somebody call the whaaaaabulance for Darl already.

Make no mistake, this is not about who is right or wrong, although we all wish it was. This is about money. SCO is like a tick under the skin of Linux. They're going suck as much blood (money) out of the situation for as long as they can.

Despite his protests about the "attacks", McBride is clearly enjoying the fact that people actually know the name SCO. From the article:

McBride proudly dumped two phone-book-sized binders of press clippings on the stage during his SCO Forum keynote on Monday as proof that his company had become more relevant in the high technology industry.

"Relevant in the technology industry"? Come on now. The only reason they're "relevant" is that they're threatening the health of the technology industry. It's like saying gential warts is sexy.

New strategy in the "war"?

[Chilles]

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....

Re:poison?

[big-giant-head]

What food?? I hear he sucks the blood from unsuspecting linux programmers, sleeps in a pine box lined with earth and only comes out at night.

The only way to kill him is to sprinkle jolt cola on him and drive a copy of the GPL through his heart.

Otherwise he'll just live for centuries and every so often jump out of the closet to sue IBM.....

Re:yea well

[Nurseman]

When I clicked on the link, I got McBrides view on the matter, and a whopping IBM ad in the middle of the interview..priceless.

Wild Speculation

[BootSpooge]

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.

Re:Linking style guide

[julesh]

Huh? Looks OK to me. The ridiculous slashdot user name has a mailto: link, the article (second link) is a rather long URL to a web page which, in slashdot tradition, I haven't read.

Re:I did!

[grandmofftarkin]

Research them??? (reach perhaps?) I think I better learn to use the preview button. I should also stop talking to myself as I doubt anyone but me is now reading this, though if they are, they'll think I'm crazy!

Well, it's a nice thought

[starseeker]

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.

Re:Well, it's a nice thought

[47PHA60]

In the case of Linux, they have no financial incentive to show their cards - they cannot occupy a better position than they do now.

Actually, they may be in a legally precarious position. If you claim contract violation, the judge is likely to ask how the plaintiff tried to mitigate damages. If the defendant says "we offered to fix the problem, but they refused to tell us what we did wrong, then demanded 3billion USD," the plaintiff has a problem.

For example, the Free Software Foundation has never sued anyone. They see a GPL violation; if they hold the copyright on the software, they contact the offendor and tell him to comply with the GPL. The offender complies (often it is just a mistake, not malice or attempted theft), and the damage is undone. There is no longer a reason to go to court, and if the FSF did sue, the judge would throw out the case, as the damage was mitigated willingly by the defendant.

Can people refute without being crazed loons?

[Speare]

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.

Re:Can people refute without being crazed loons?

[BigBadBri]

So there's a 'correct' mode of speech?

One that the lawyers like?
That the politicians like?
That passes for polite conversation at a Mormon fondue party?
That is neutered, sterile and grey?

Come off it - when someone is personally maligned as Eric Raymond was by Darl McBride, the use of invective and sarcasm is not only justified, but almost mandatory.

SCO is trying to destroy the Open Source movement for their own greed - if that doesn't make you angry enough to react properly, then nothing will.

And IBM can handle the 'effective and professional resistance' to the lawsuit, while those with wit and style (like Raymond and Torvalds) fight the PR battle.

Chill out, square daddy!

Re:Can people refute without being crazed loons?

[swordgeek]

Sorry, but I just don't agree.

ESR has a long history of writing tirades like a 14 year old fanboy, albeit one with an excellent grasp of English.

It is possible to write a STRONG article--one full of very clear and ferocious intent, that doesn't contain sophmoric sarcasm and literary raspberries.

Interestingly, ESR quoted Jeff Gerhardt, who managed to do exactly what ESR fails at: tear a strip off of SCO and Darl, offer them a way out, make it PERFECTLY clear where he (and his supporters) stands, and remain mature.

This is a really childish email..

[cnb]

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".

Already Happening...

[FreeUser]

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?

Que Red Hat ... 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.

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 ... 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.

Re:Already Happening...

[esnible]

[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]

Re:Already Happening...

[HiThere]

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.)

Re:Already Happening...

[fanatic]

We have made fun of such claims, but we haven't seen the contracts.

Their complaint included a side letter amending the contract between IBM and AT&T/SCO/whoever, to the effect that IBM owns what IBM writes. SCO is DOA.

New Dimension

[tds67]

Eric S. Raymond
esr@thyrsus.com
President, Open Source Initiative
Friday, 20 August 2003

So now Eric Raymond is attacking SCO from other time dimensions? SCO is in DEEP doo-doo now!

" brain-boggling disconnect" indeed

[Rogerborg]

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.

Re:Friday August 23 2003 or Friday August 20 2003?

[julesh]

But there are some illegal ones that could be inferred from his statement: DOS, DDOS, DRDOS,

Despite much FUD to the contrary, I don't believe DRDOS is illegal.

If my memory is correct, however, it is owned by SCO (or some parent/sibling company thereof), and should hence be boycotted. :-)

Darl's achieved one thing...

[Ratface]

He's the first person I've seen who makes ESR look like he's *not* a paranoid conspiracy nut! :-D

Is Darl OK?

[Lxy]

Dear Darl,

I knew when we went all weekend without a SCO story that things were a little off. Now the only SCO news we get are dupes. Are you feeling OK?

You haven't said much in awhile. Either the ESR response cornered you (doubtful) or you've run out of things to say (more likely). Darl, please issue a new press release. We haven't heard from you in awhile and I want to make sure you're still OK. You were innovating so much with all those press releases, one right after another, and now with this lack of press releases I wonder, have you stifled your own innovation? Also, I haven't fallen on my ass laughing boisterously since Friday, and I need some inspiration. Thanks!

Your friend

PS I still owe you a SCO license. The check is in the mail, I promise.

SCO's MIT mathematicians go AWOL

[Anonymous Coward]

SCO's MIT mathematicians go AWOL

SCO said, they had three teams, including a team from MIT math department, examine their "proof" of UNIX code improperly in Linux

1. No such team could be found at MIT. And SCO are back tracking on this claim.

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V123/N33/33sco.33n.html

2. Here is an example quote that SCO made about MIT math involvement:

http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/gove rnment/legalissues/story/0,10801,81973,00.html

SCO was able to uncover the alleged violations by hiring three teams of experts, including a group from the MIT math department, to analyze the Linux and Unix source code for similarities. "All three found several instances where our Unix source code had been found in Linux," said a SCO spokesman.

Now people who signed the NDA are dissapearing

[wildzeke]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11208

Re:Go, Eric, Yeah!!

[tvm662]

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.

Re:How old is ESR?

[BigBadBri]

He's old enough to use the word 'pellucid' correctly - hence probably older than thou.

For my part, I thought it a well constructed, amusing, angry rant, worthy of the widest possible dissemination - perhaps you need to read it again with your brain in gear.

For A New SCO Article...

[EzInKy]

...that discusses getting preliminary injunctions against them, you can go here.

For those of you confused by all the Acronyms:

[A_Non_Moose]

SCO = Stupid, Confused Org.

ESR = Eric's SCO Rage.

IBM = It's Better Manually.

IANAL = I Am Not a Lawyer/Llama.

I hope this clears up the confusion for TECBA's.
(Those Easily Confused By Acronyms).

Speaking for whom?

[tarsi210]

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.

Please don't feed the trolls

[DCheesi]

McBride is a troll, plain and simple. Responses will only encourage him; personal responses even more so.

Re:Please don't feed the trolls

[djeaux]

McBride is a troll, plain and simple.

Call me slow, but you hit the McBride head right on the nail with this. How many of us have encountered Usenet trolls that threaten to sue everyone in sight?

Raymond may be guilty of feeding the troll but the kind of threats he made in his open letter are very analogous to those of us who have confronted newsgroup trolls with "Come on, buddy, have at it, file the suit & see what I can sling back at ya". Frustration builds up, the insults become intolerable & a little venom flows.

ESR should stick to coding.

[rkent]

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.

Re:ESR should stick to coding.

[HiThere]

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.

I think ESR will be a bit careful about anything that he actually proposes. And that he will ... 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.)

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.)

Re:ESR should stick to coding.

[HiThere]

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.

Make a stand

[sbranden]

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.

Who are ESR's "people"

[sharv]

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

ESR: Shut up

[Enry]

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.

Lucky American fools: you have free speech

[renehollan]

Lucky, becuase you have the First Amemdment, and actually strive to defend it. I have returned to Canada after spending 5-1/2 years legally working in the U.S. to see to my horror just how much our speech is abridged: i.e. discussing U.S. vs. Canadian style health care (private vs. socialized) is enough to get you arrested (yes, I was threatened with this simply because someone, in a public place, overheard a peaceful conversation I was having, weighing the pros and cons of each).

Fools, because too many of you don't know, care, or realize, just how important this right is.

Re:Lucky American fools: you have free speech

[Idarubicin]

i.e. discussing U.S. vs. Canadian style health care (private vs. socialized) is enough to get you arrested (yes, I was threatened with this simply because someone, in a public place, overheard a peaceful conversation I was having, weighing the pros and cons of each).

Huh?

You're welcome to debate the merits of private and public health care in Canada. Write a letter to the editor. Hold a peaceful protest somewhere. Talk about it in a bar.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees explicitly "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;" (Section 2(b) of the Charter).

Mind, the Charter does contain restrictions and exceptions (Section 1 specifies "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.", and Section 33 aka the "Notwithstanding Clause".) The U.S. Supreme Court also recognizes that there are tolerable restrictions on free speech in the United States--that doesn't make the First Amendment moot.

Re:Lucky American fools: you have free speech

[tybalt44]

When the Meech Lake accord failed... the province made clear that anyone daring to fly a Canadian flag on Canada Day risked getting arrested for "inciting to riot".

As an astute /. reader will realize, this is a lie... it never happened.

assault (because someone was offended)

This is not assault, and no one has ever been convicted of assault due to being "offended". Threats of force by word or gesture ("I'll punch your lights out", shaking a fist in someone's face, etc), if they are reasonably believable, can constitute assault. Not otherwise.

There was a case a few years ago that actually tested the principle that truth was a legal defence against libel

This gets tested all the time, in all sorts of places. So what?

before you trot out the 1982 patriated constitution, with it's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, look up "notwithstanding clause". Which has been used twice by Canadian governments in 21 years... once by Quebec on Bill 101 (the French-language law) and once by Saskatchewan on a labour bill. That's it. It's no more a limit on rights and freedoms than the the time lag in getting a court to rule on constitutionality.

Canadians fall into two camps: rats who pervert democracy via rule of the largest mob, or sheep, who are too tired or scared to fight back.

So I'm either a rat or a sheep, am I? I stand up for my civil liberties, thanks, and thank heaven that I am in a country where these - and my human rights - are protected.

I can understand you are upset with living in Canada (apparently for political reasons) and want to move... why aren't you able to emigrate? What's holding you back?

I am seriously considering giving my son up for adoption so he can return to the U.S.

Oh. Right. You're totally off your freaking rocker. My mistake.

ESR rides again (sigh)

[pergamon]

Great. Whether SCO has any case whatsoever the press concerning this story is one of the biggest threats to Linux and open source adoption in corporations in quite some time. While OSI documents like Halloween 9 are useful, they probably won't get quoted. When ESR, especially when he explicitly is writing as the president of the OSI like in this article, posts an immature rant like this it does more harm than good by providing SCO and reporters covering the story with quotable examples of immaturity and complete lack of tact. Imagine a CNN article on the subject pulling out

"I'm in at least semi-regular communication with most of the people and organizations who are causing you problems right now."

followed by

"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."

which could easily be a mob threat. Do you want your boss to see this in the press?

Or

"Was this what you wanted out of life, to end up imitating the doomed villain in a cheesy B movie? Tell me, does that dark helmet fit comfortably? Are all the minions cringing in proper form? "No, Mr. Torvalds, I expect you to die!" I'd ask if you'd found the right sort of isolated wasteland for your citadel of dread yet, but that would be a silly question; you're in Utah, after all."

...does that cast Linux and open source in the proper light for widespread adoption in your Fortune 500 company?

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.

Not a threat

[linuxislandsucks]

The proper term for promising Legal action and not doing it is Barratry..

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=barratr y

Whereas ERS promising that if certain action is not stopped that SCO and McBride wil face legal consequences is a perfect legal statement to make in that it does not open OSI or ESR to any other liabilities..

as it stands Now any Linux User not charged by SCO Group has the right to ask the court to convict SCO group on Barratry charges..

Re:Friday August 23 2003 or Friday August 20 2003?

[sketerpot]

At least he seems a lot saner than Darl McWhoever. That counts for something....

Re:Friday August 23 2003 or Friday August 20 2003?

[battjt]

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

I didn't take it that way

[The Tyro]

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.

No

[roystgnr]

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.

... huh?

[TWX]

"...but I live in the US, not one of you more violent countries..."

since when?! We've had civil war, forced annexation of lands belonging to other countries, wars against several major European and Asian powers, one of the largest arsenals of nukes ever assembled, and that's all on a government level. On a personal level, we have 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, and many other problems...

Re:... huh?

[battjt]

I'm in a country where I don't expect physical violence when someone threatens "I guarantee you won't like what we're cooking up next". It was a bit of sarcasm.

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

Terrorist events in this country have included the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York, the U. S Capitol, Mobil Oil's corporate headquarters in New York City, and the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City. More recently, both World Trade Center Buildings and the Pentagon were the targets of a well-planned terrorist attack involving the use of commercial aircraft as flying bombs.

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

Re:... huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Not mine. After a thorough investigation it turns out that I hadn't been born at the time.

Strictly speaking...

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Friday August 23 2003 or Friday August 20 2003?

[nick this]

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.

Why does the press keep lying about Novell?

[rifter]

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?

Microsoft gameplan (no, not the Xbox)

[The Lynxpro]

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...

Re:Microsoft gameplan (no, not the Xbox)

[argent]

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...

Re:Is it real?

[Invisible Agent]

It seems a bit too irrational, and ill prepared.

Ah, you must be new to Mr. Raymond's writings. Don't worry, you get used to it. :)

ESR Turns SCO's Own Tactics Against Them

[DaveAtFraud]

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.

Already done serious stuff

[amcguinn]

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.

ESR sure has a way with words

[argent]

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.

Re:ESR's and Rob Landley on SCO's Reply to IBM

[argent]

ESR is mistaken about the origin of OpenServer.

There are actually four SCO UNIXes, not two:

1. The original Xenix, which was based on Version 7 UNIX, and had three major releases. This is the version Microsoft sold.

2. The second generation of Xenix, which based on the first commercial AT&T UNIX source trees (System III and System V).

3. SCO UNIX, which came out at the same time as Microport, Interactive, and the other early System V i386 ports (System V revision 2), and was mostly based on the same code base (SVR1, SVR2, SVR3).

4. Unixware, which was the Novell SVR4 port.

The Version 7 and System III code bases were primarily maintained on the 16-bit PDP-11. The 80286 actually provided a larger and in some ways more powerful environment than the code SCO started with. Xenix was the premier small business UNIX port for many years, and the early SCO and Microsoft developers did a very good job taming and stabilizing their system.

The most common platform for Microsoft Xenix was not the PC, it was the TRS-80 model 16, a cheaply built (even in comparison with the PC) 68000-based "all-in-one" computer with a built-in keyboard and monochrome text display. At one point there were more people using Xenix on the TRS-80 than all the other UNIX platforms put together.

He's right that none of this qualifies SCO's product as an "enterprise" system, but it has a better and more complex history than he's presenting.

Re:Special story submitter ?

[mpk]

I believe that the Northumbria story there is number 306 in the list of "names which former polytechnics considered but which turned out to be a bit rude when abbreviated, tee hee". There's more of those than there are ex-poly universities in the UK, and I don't think any student of these matters would consider any of them to be more than urban legend. Let me guess, a friend told you that they'd heard that...?

Why I don't want to be one of Eric Raymond's "peop

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:they held a press conference for analysts

[poopie]

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.

Reasonable? What does reason have to do with SCO?

[Moekandu]

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