Slashdot Mirror
Eric Raymond's Homebrew SCO Poison
What Can You Expect From A University Named "UH?" writes "Eric S. Raymond responds to Darl McBride's charge that he's drinking IBM's Kool-Aid in SCO's fight against Linux.
The main thrust: Yes, there is an alliance against SCO, but, like the Open Source movement itself, it arises from lots of folks spontaneously striving for a common goal. 'It's beyond me how [you] can have the gall to talk as though we need funding or marching orders from IBM to mobilize against you. IBM couldn't stop us from mobilizing!' "
I was truly surprised when I first encountered something like open source. It was on a mud not linux, but people were spending many hours coding and got very little appreciation for it. They still coded away. Linux is much the same way exept the code is more important. Now, if you try and take that away from them, I promise your in for a fight. You can't take someone's baby away. Dreams are better as dreams than reality.
I also have sent off a message or two to various people, trying to ensure that all the various data items that come up, each of which refutes SCO claims in some manner, get brought together when the court case starts.
For example, in response to a prior claim that the copyright law prevents the GPL from allowing users to make multiple copies, I wrote:
There is an obvious flaw in that reasoning. It focusses on the the public, and not on the copyright holder. A copyright holder decides how a work is to be released, after all, and it is perfectly legal for a copyright holder to release something to the Public Domain, in which case everyone can make unlimited copies. So, the actual relevant fact is the copyright holder has the right to decide on any degree of release between public domain and not-at-all. Therefore, when the copyright holder releases something under the GPL, the copyright holder has decided to accept the GPL's details for a release. In such case the copyright holder is giving the public the right to make unlimited copies, which fact does NOT violate the copyright law.
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?
As a long-time fan of Eric Scott Raymond, let me tell you: just because you disagree with a company, that doesn't make you a "threat." For example, Glen Harbiller campaigned against McDonald's all through the 1970s. McDonald's, of course, tried to sue him. They didn't want him to talk about McDonald's cruel labor practices, subpar food handling practices, and overly hot coffee (!).
Similarly, rallying against anticompetitive bullies like SCO cannot be considered threatening. It is free speech. Now although all my senators and house members are owned by corporations, the justice system will find in favor of crusaders like me and Eric Scott Raymond.
I'm not Seth Finkelstein. I still speak the truth.
ESR is threatening to use every legal means available to fight SCO. that's legal, justified, implied and expected.
But what do I know. I'm just looking for anonymous gay sex.
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!"
I read this a couple of days ago, and found it rather refreshing.
Eric only said what is on the mind of everyone in the free software/open source movement.
SCO is hitting below the belt, playing dirty ball against free software. It is about time someone vents their outrage.
To paraphrase McBride, the GPL is null and void, and those free/open source guys need to rethink their whole world view, or pay the consequences.
How can you not get upset in the face of such meglomania?
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
Right now we need strong language; we need people willing to put it on the line and kick business and government.
Someone asked if I had patched against MSBlast; I said yes, I installed Linux.
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.
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:
"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.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.....
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
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.
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.
I'm not Seth Finkelstein. I still speak the truth.
but I'm sure SCO is going to be reading it looking for ways to sue him, not to hear his message.
News Flash: SCO wants our money, not their code removed. In the case of Linux, they have no financial incentive to show their cards - they cannot occupy a better position than they do now. As soon as problems are solved they newspapers lose interest, and SCO has to be a product producing business again. We have see how well they do on that basis, and anyway who wants to deal with them knowing how they've approached this issue? I sure don't want to deal with people like that.
This is not going to go away until they get squashed in court. They have made absolutely sure of that, by making incredible claims of ownership. The suspicion of free software from proprietary software trained CEOs plays into their hands. Those people, the ones who make the decisions, don't trust the opinions of the geek world. They listen to lawyerspeak. Hence, the SCO problem doesn't go away until it is clear in the never-never land of legal affairs that they have no teeth, however far fetched we might find their claims.
Nor would it matter even if the community took the extreme action of moving to FreeBSD or Hurd, or developed a new kernel altogether. SCO would simply make more claims that they have IP that any possible functional OS kernel would have to infringe on. As awful as it sounds, that is in fact the purpose of some IP claims - people want to occupy strong positions to be able to legally make claims like that. So it doesn't sound as bizarre to some people as it does to us. I doubt it is true, but they have nothing to lose at this point and SCO will cling to the ankles of the open source community until they are struck off by a judges gavel. Nothing else will carry any weight whatsoever.
So kudos to ESR for telling them off as they deserve, but aside from those already convinced SCO has lost it this won't do much. In corporate america lawyers are IT in matters such as this. We are going to have to batten the hatches and weather the storm, because SCO has targeted open source. This has (IMHO) been about destroying the free software world from day one, and they won't stop even if the linux kernel gets abandoned. There will still be a viable free operating system out there of some kind, and they will still have more work to do. We can't satisfy them as long as we exist.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
What we need is for someone to force SCO to reveal the allegedly infinging code - in public, not under NDA. Cannot someone get a ruling that, since it will have to be disclosed in court, it should be disclosed now?
... oops, already done. This is all in the works, and the court will amost certainly require the alleged code be revealed publicly within a few months. End of SCO.
... they will have to do so, and failure will result in contempt of court and/or fraud charges. I.e. if they don't reveal it to red hat when so ordered, and then try to use it in another court case, Darl et. al. will be having a deep, meaningful relationship with Bubba, compliments of their own contempt of court charges. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.00.
Que Red Hat
There is almost certainly no infringing code whatsoever. But, in the extraoridinarilly unlikely event (statistically indistinguishable from 0.0, I suspect) there is infringing code, it will be removed immediately upon revelation, and $CO will be able to collect on $0.00 damages, as they have done the exact opposite that the law requires (work to mitigate the damages), trying through deception and secrecy to maximize any damages. Which does not fly, even in these dismal times. Never has, probably never will, and certainly won't for SCO. Their hands are "dirty," the code they reference has already been declared public domain by a court of law in an earlier AT&T v. BSD case IIRC, and if not, comes from so many textbooks (including at least one that places no restrictions on reuse of the code) as to be common knowledge. Their "trade secrets" case is dead in the water, and they have no copyright case.
Red Hat has filed to force them to reveal the alleged code
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
He's the first person I've seen who makes ESR look like he's *not* a paranoid conspiracy nut! :-D
A little planning goes a long way...
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.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
SCO's MIT mathematicians go AWOL
e rnment/legalissues/story/0,10801,81973,00.html
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/gov
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.
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.
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.
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
Actually, yes.
I disdain the entire concept that you should be cold and dispassionate when someone is calling you a liar and a thief. Right now, the only voice most businesses (and individuals) hear is SCO's; to change this, we have to shout louder.
SCO won't win in court and they know that, so they make a big fuss and call attention to themselves. That's fine--let's put attention on them by loudly announcing they (and not us) are the liars and thieves, that they have no case, that they are attempting this solely to pump and dump stock.
We need strong language.
Someone asked if I had patched against MSBlast; I said yes, I installed Linux.