Linus to SCO: 'Please Grow Up'

brakk writes "From this article at Infoworld, Linus responds to SCO's open letter in a manner reminiscent of patting a child on the head." chrisd notes that his company is making SCO employees unhireable.

Comments

Childish screening procedures.

[grub]

Another relatively uninteresting open letter, however this part of the submission caught my eye:

chrisd notes that his company is making SCO employees unhireable.
[from that link]:
Any resumes which include the Santa Cruz Operation after May of 2003 will be immediately deleted as well.

That is truly childish. The real assholes at SCO are the suits and money-grubbing lawyers responsible for this charade. A code monkey in the trenches who needs a job to pay the bills isn't necessarily an enemy of open source.

Guilt by association is a slippery slope, remember Joe McCarthy?

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[theNote]

I believe this practice may be illegal.

Any EOE experts to give some clarification?

I believe this could be considered discrimination, and companies are required to keep all resumes they receive on file.

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[MojoMonkey]

Hard to say, just remember that it's a tough economy right now, and getting a paycheck twice a month is hard to turn away from. Sometime getting food in your kids mouth takes priority over making a statement. They should not be punished for this.

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[grub]

Anytime an employer does something one finds disturbing, that person should just change employers? That would eventually leave him/her unemployed. Too many jobs in too short a period on a resume is a red-flag.

Remember that your employer does not speak for you.

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[Anonymous Coward]

Stay: Have a reliable (for now anyway) paycheck.
Leave: No paycheck. No sure new job. And since not fired, no unemployment benefits to speak of.

Now, if a person had a job to change to, then it'd be different. Blocking that door doesn't help the codemonky, it helps SCO.

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[moz13]

They have a right to hire those with values that sit best with their company. If they percieve someone who remains with SCO after their actions as not having the values they seek, they have every right to deny application.

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[cindik]

Indeed. Sarah works at SCO. Recent moves spur her to seek other employment. She's unhireable. Why? Because she didn't immeditately quit and beg for quarters on the street until she got a new job? What an insane overreaction.

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[valkraider]

I 100% agree. It is sad that people will base opinions of regular honda accord driving normal employees on the actions of yacht owning mansion dwelling executives.

Happens all the time. People gotta eat... Lets be more reasonable here, and remember who we all are...

Not that I expect anything to change because *I* asked...

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[swb]

I don't know about you, but quitting your job in a bad overall economy and a truly horseshit IT economy can seriously endanger the well-being and stability of one's home and family.

As much as I think SCO is a bad company and what they're doing is reprehensible, do you really think that someone should risk their home and family over it?

I might be inclined to do it if I was literally fighting for my community against some real threat (ie, armed invasion or military coup d'etat), but over the SCO/Linux debacle?

I think you have to have a serious lack of perspective if you think that committing economic suicide over SCO is the right thing to do.

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[soulsteal]

Ideals and sympathy don't feed children or pay bills.

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[mocm]

Maybe the reason for not hiring former SCO people is the fear of being sued by SCO, when those people contribute to your own software, since SCO seems to have a very wide definition of "derivative work".

On the other hand, if their motives are to take revenge on SCO, why not automatically hire any programmer (not executive) that will leave SCO immediately.

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[BFKrew]

I have to agree here.

What chance does the average coder who works to feed his family and keep a roof over his head have of influencing company executives (who can sakc him) who smell a big pay packet? Get real. Absolutely none at all. Sure, he can leave but if everyone who worked at companies who have undesirable motives, or were pursuing easy money then there'd be no one working!

chrisd if I were you, I'd get this taken off because you're company just looks petty and rather spiteful. Who would WANT to work for a company where the person who is interviewing you is mainly concerned with nothing to do with your job? You don't do yourself, or your company any favours whatsoever. What's next - judge someone on where they worked 5 years ago? God help your current employees with MS experience or if Red Hat etc ever do anything amiss!

You will get the applicants you deserve.

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[bongoras]

It would be more effective if they actually HAD any job openings. As it is, it's sorta childish and lame. Nah nah, I won't hire and SCO people, nah nah... I mean even if I *could* hire people I wouldn't hire any SCO people... I mean... I mean... of all the people we aren't hiring because we don't have any openings, SCO people are at the top of the list.

grow up.

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[FJ]

This may not be a simple matter of retribution against SCO. Look at it this way:

I run a business. I hire some people who were formerly employeed by SCO. I release a major new product which brings in millions. What is to stop SCO from taking me to court, saying that the employees I hired from them used SCO IP to improve my product?

SCO has already shown a willingness to sue based upon shaky grounds. I'd bet if they don't win the IBM lawsuit they will go after someone else next.

Just the threat of a lawsuit affects stock prices and can have a dramatic impact on a business.

I'm not saying this is the case here, but it would make me think if I was in charge of hiring people.

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[xonker]

They should not be punished for this.

I disagree. If a person shows a willingness to stay with a company that is very obviously doing the Wrong Thing, I wouldn't want to work with them. Yeah, it's a tough job market -- and SCO is trying to make it tougher for folks in the Linux crowd by sowing FUD about Linux and trying to stall or stop its adoption. If you stay on with the company -- even as the receptionist or janitor, you're condoning its actions.

Trying justify this "anything for a buck" mentality just doesn't work for me. How evil would a company have to be before you'd stop taking money from them?

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[ichimunki]

If that's the case, then the date of May 2003 seems like a bizarre cutoff date. You'd have to avoid pretty much anyone who ever worked for SCO if your true concern was to avoid potential litigation related to derivative works.

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[Anonymous Coward]

When you have a family to support we'll listen to you, until then STFU.

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[Lemmy Caution]

They are being far better than SCO, because they are making a choice based on the facts, not on a bunch of made-up nonsense in order to justify a wacky lawsuit.

I think it is entirely reasonable to make one's judgment as an employee part of the screen for a new job. I would look seriously askance at someone so mercenary as to stay in a morally bankrupt organization, like a Monsanto or a Nike or an SCO or such. It's not as if they were conscripted. And there are thousands of job candidates out there who have more of the courage of their convictions - I'd certainly prefer to hire them.

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[Error27]

Certainly they should be thinking about leaving anyway. SCO is committing suicide.

Having SCO on your resume is like having Enron. I have more sympathy for the Enron employees because how could they know what the management was doing? But still, it doesn't look very good even for Enron employees.

On the other hand, I do agree that what Chrisd is doing is childish. Also he got the name of the company wrong.

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[rograndom]

That is truly childish. The real assholes at SCO are the suits and money-grubbing lawyers responsible for this charade. A code monkey in the trenches who needs a job to pay the bills isn't necessarily an enemy of open source.

One could argue that by continuing to work for SCO the applicant was willfully helping violate the GPL and copyright laws. The applicant put personal gain over the community and there for no different than the lawyers. I agree that it is a very difficult decision to make in the current economy, but it's still a showing of character.

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[banzai51]

Are the coders being asked to do the wrong thing? No. The CEO and lawyers of the company are doing the wrong thing. The coders have no say in the matter. Have you renouced your citizenship and left the country every time your government did something you disagreed with?

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[blinder]

disagree. If a person shows a willingness to stay with a company that is very obviously doing the Wrong Thing

So, how was a person who was working support, or development or whatever, doing the "Wrong Thing?"

Guilt by association?

In the big picture what SCO is doing is not really wrong, its just business... its bad business... and they will fail... but that's all it is, a very bad (and stupid) business decision made by a half wit and a gaggle of hungry lawyers. What you have is a bunch of fragile knee jerk geeks who think its true evil and get all bent out of shape when faced with confrontation. It isn't evil... and to punish those who just want to feed their kids, save for retirement and do their thing is not only unfair, but is stupid, supremely stupid.

To quit one's job over the SCO vs. Linux debate is intensly stupid and shows a real disconnect with reality... and to discriminate against those that don't is as stupid.

I think what gets lost is, in the grand scheme of things... this SCO thing is insignificant. In fact, I would say those that really cry the loudest about this are the one's that need it the most... gives them something to complain about on /. (over and over and over again)

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[Wylfing]

Under that logic it is a perfectly valid concern that a SCO employee might "inevitably" bring some SCO IP into the company and result in SCO filing a lawsuit.

Exactly right. As a project manager you can't allow an ex-SCO engineer to code on one of your projects. Do you think it would take one week or two before you were sued for SCO IP in your software? According to SCO, simply being around their sacred code taints everything you do afterward. Well, so it does.

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[Merk]

So when do you draw the line? What if your company was making dangerous chemicals and not disposing of them properly? What if they were making chemical weapons? What if they were selling chemical weapons to terrorists?

Ethics that only come into play when it's convenient to use them aren't really ethics.

chrisd's company evidently has a higher standard of ethics for its employees than you have for yourself. Most of the world would probably side with you on this one too, but if they want to miss out on potentially great talent because of this, that's the sacrifice they're making.

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[ericski]

IANAL either but based on SCO's sue happy position, hiring someone from SCO could be a big liability.
SCO could later come and say that their ex employee transfered their IP to your company.

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[MojoMonkey]

Remember there is a difference between unethical and illegal.

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[jedidiah]

I DO have a family to support.

A man must be able to set an example for his children. They tend to do what you do rather than to do what you say. Leaving a job may cause your family a rough patch for awhile but that will eventually pass. The effects of setting a poor example are much more long lasting.

It is better to be able to look your son(s) in the eye.

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[platypus]

God damn, they aren't selling drugs to minors or something like that. Give them a break.

What if someone had quit SCO, one week before IBM would cave in and buys SCO?

You can bet everyone at SCO _is_ looking for a new job (even Darl McBride, lol) , but what on earth could, say ,a programmer achieve by quitting his job there? In the end, it would help SCO, because they aren't interested in paying programmers anyway.

Oh, and maybe we'll see some "Halloween" documents from SCO in the future, just because there are still some good guys left there.

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[Xerithane]

Damage don't care which division you work in, or whether you were even remotely involved in the whole debacle. They'll happily discriminate against you if you worked on something that didn't involve the "suspect" code in the slightest.

Go look and see how many employees SCO had after May 2003, and what their jobs were.

Just go back and look at the layoff history, and staff. It was pretty much people who were involved, hence why Chris put the May 2003 cut-off in there.

As a side note: I hardly see that one (small) company refusing to employ SCO people is newsworthy. Even if chrisd is on the board and a geek website notible. Now if it was a fortune 100 or FTSE 100 company - then that would be something to talk about.

It's because Slashdot editors are self-important egocentric people who get free publicity for their pie-in-the-sky ventures.

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[Anonymous Coward]

There comes a point when the example is less important than providing basics (roof, clothing, food) and a stable, loving environment.

I'd rather have to tell my kid someday that I had to sell out so that he wouldn't have to than tell him "sorry that you had to go to bed screaming because you were hungry when you were two, but I had a point to prove."

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[thedillybar]

The fact of the matter is, if everyone who disagreed with what SCO is doing resigned (and those not currently working for them refuse to apply), then SCO wouldn't be able to do what it's doing. The coders *DO* have a say in the matter, because if they quit, and other responsible coders refuse to take the position, SCO can't do what they're doing.

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[Chester K]

Ethics that only come into play when it's convenient to use them aren't really ethics.

We're not talking about convenience here, we're talking about a situation where invoking your ethics in such a way is utterly self-destructive. The IT job market is absolute shit right now, and I don't see any companies out there who are offering to take in any and all SCO refugees. (Speaking of which, what of their ethics? -- How can you work for a company that's not doing everything it can to help destroy SCO? You should quit immediately and take a stand!)

Besides, you could do much more damage to SCO by staying on their payroll and simply underperforming. Poor employees are worse than no employees.

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[cavemanf16]

"So when do you draw the line? What if your company was making dangerous chemicals and not disposing of them properly?"

Wife of evil henchman #1: (on the phone) Yes... uh-huh... ok... Thank you. (Turns to her son, Bobby)
Bobby, I have some terrible news. Your step-father, Steve, was just killed in a horrible accident involving a steam-roller.
Bobby: Steve! No, not Steve! He was like a father to me! (Runs to mother and hugs her tightly as he begins to sob)

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[Lemmy Caution]

Well, I was unemployed for a while, and turned down a couple opportunities to work at places I considered morally objectionable, including Bechtel.

So I have put my money where my mouth is. I then recieved and accepted an offer to work for a company whose values I respect - and at a higher salary than my last position. One thing they could recognize from my CV was my commitment to good business ethics and values.

It doesn't matter that there's 1000 qualified job candidates that would stab their mothers in the back for a job. For any give position, all that matters is that there is one (in fact, many) who would not. Who would you rather work with?

IT is a dead field. It's now just another form of skilled labor, like being a machinist or a glazier. You need to translate your skills as best you can to something more viable. It would be a lot easier, of course, if you lived in a country with decent health-care and educational benefits, to give you the time and opportunity to retrain.

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[RealTimeFreeAgent]

If the above is true, why are they only unwilling to hire SCO employees who worked there after May 2003? Certainly employees who worked there before that date were tainted with SCO's IP.

Face facts, this is purely a political statement by chrisd's company and has nothing to do with a fear of being sued by McBride & co.

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[Cyclometh]

They are not being better than SCO here- they're being just as bad or worse. SCO Group has a lot of employees, almost none of whom are involved with the kinds of stuff SCO is pulling. Punishing them for being employed by SCO is no better than SCO demanding money from Linux users. Both actions are based on unethical foundations.

Let's consider something else here- most people reading /. despise SCO for what they're doing, and would love to see them in the toilet. One way that might happen is if SCO Group employees start leaving en masse seeking employment with ethical employers. But now there's folks like this twonk at Damage Studios saying that he's not gonna hire former SCO Group employees. This isn't useful, it's not good business, and it's not good policy. It's just stupidity. Of the first water.

In my personal opinion, Damage Studios has done more damage to themselves than good. Even the most rabid anti-SCO zealot on /. knows there's a difference between the suits and the coders, and you just don't punish the coders for the shit the suits do, or you're no better than the suits. This was just a stunt that Damage pulled to get a link on /.'s main page (and sadly it worked).

Also, I don't imagine that Damage Studios gets a massive amount of resumes from former SCO group employees. I wonder if many /. readers would refuse to consider working at a place like Damage based on this?

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[Lemmy Caution]

Hiring someone else isn't wrecking anyone's life - it's being selective about whose life you un-wreck. There's a big difference.

And I'm afraid that you are talking out of your ass on this. I have enough experience (and age) to have sired some of the Slashdot posters.

Does this mean I wouldn't hire someone with SCO on their resume? Think about it. Just what SCO code has been worthy of note lately? Someone with the job title of "software engineer" in a company whose strategy is entirely legal has, apparently, been part of a massive and ongoing failure to create worthwhile products and services. That would suggest, to me, a lack of initiative and ability, as well as a failure of conviction. I wouldn't throw out an application based on that, but I'd be very, very skeptical. And in this market, hiring managers can be extremely skeptical.

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[Cecil]

There are thousands of job candidates out there who whould use their Grandmothers' careworn old face as a stepping stone up to any (relevant) job whatsoever!

Yes, that sounds like the sort of person I want in my company, working next to me.

Fuck them. I wouldn't hire them. I'd like moral, human beings, thanks, not materialistic shitheads.

Many *FAMILIES* can live on social assistance and as laborers. If these 'poor IT folk' are unwilling to give up their 4 bedroom 2 bathroom house with fireplace and pool, then too bad for them. Fuck 'em.

If they really need money so badly that they feel a need to sell their morals in addition to their time and effort, perhaps they should look into a career in law or politics.

Re:Childish screening procedures.

[Ian Wolf]

if they haven't been looking for a new job and preparing to quit

Its not 1994 anymore. Finding a decent IT job isn't like falling out of a boat and hitting water anymore. There are thousands of people out of jobs for more than six months and STILL looking for something comparable. (I pulled this stat out of my ass, but I feel real confident that I understated.) Finding a decent IT job in CA is tough, finding one in Utah, I can imagine is significantly more difficult.

childness hiring?

[linuxislandsucks]

Come one people only the current top management of SCOX and Canopy are responsible and should be held accountable..

However, with the laying off of most of the r&d coders is there any one left that is accoutnable in nature?

Acronyms :-)

[schnarff]

Hmmm, maybe they're not Smoking Crack, Obviously as I suggested yesterday...instead, they're Spoiled Children, Obviously. :-)

Hiring Policy

[MSTCrow5429]

"chrisd notes that his company is making SCO employees unhireable."

That's capricious and sick. It is not the rank and file who is responsible, it is the brass. To punish people who have done nothing wrong, guilt by association, is cruel and unfair. This would be like throwing an Enron middle-level mananger in prison simply because he/she worked for Enron. SCO isn't Nazi Germany, people!

Re:Hiring Policy

[watzinaneihm]

Nope. When the Nazis were tried (in Nuremberg IIRC) it was concluded that the soldiers were responsible for their actions and could not justify their actions based on the explanation that they were just following orders.
I am not trying to compare SCO to pre-WW2 germany , just clarifying a point. Please don't invoke Godwins law.

Re:Hiring Policy

[frkiii]

I disagree.

If anyone at SCO had knowledge of what was happening, and came to the reasonable conclusion that their company was "full of it", and did not take steps to help correct it, or didn't disassociate themsevles from SCO, then they are a party to the actions of SCO.

There is such a thing as personal integrity.

I have ceased to work at a company or two because their business pratices, when it came to their customers (and handling employees other than me) were reprehensible. These were both good paying jobs, but I could not continue to work there. I did, using the proper channels, make my observations and views on their activities known.

To their credit, I was not rail-roaded out nor was I "targeted", so to speak. The employment ended amicably, but I would never work for those companies again.

Again, for each individual working in SCO that had the knowledge of what is (or is not) going on there, it is solely a personal integrity issue.

I would question a former SCO employee on exactly why they left and what role or knowledge they might have regarding the SCO/IBM/Linux situation. If I found that they were in any sort of position to try to handle and correct it, and failed to do so, that would weigh heavily against them being considered for a position I might have to fill.

Regards,

Fredrick

Unhireable Ex-SCO people

[NormalVisual]

I suspect that the reason that Damage is refusing to hire ex-SCO employees is to prevent any possible legal action on SCO's part - I would not put it past SCO to sue a new employer for misappropriation of trade secrets or any number of other things, given their track record. I really don't think it's a political statement at all.

Equal Opportunity?

[KodaK]

Hey Chrisd,

You can't seriously claim to be an Equal Opportunity Employer and at the same time reject applicants based on where they used to work. I know there's not a law but come on, that's the spirit of EOE.

Re:Equal Opportunity?

[horza]

Office of Equal Employment Opportunity: Discrimination is defined in civil rights law as unfavorable or unfair treatment of a person or class of persons in comparison to others who are not members of the protected class because of race, sex, color, religion, national origin, age, physical/mental handicap, sexual harassment, sexual orientation or reprisal for opposition to discriminatory practices or participation in the EEO process.

Federal EEO laws prohibit an employer from discriminating against persons in all aspects of employment, including recruitment, selection, evaluation, promotion, training, compensation, discipline, retention and working conditions, because of their protected status.

I think the point is that you don't choose your race, sex, color, religion, national origin, age, physical/mental handicap, sexual orientation or to be sexually harassed. That is the spirit of EOE. If you choose to prostitute your talents for a morally corrupt company, then that is your choice and you accept the consequences.

Phillip.

Re:Equal Opportunity?

[jamesmrankinjr]

Federal EEO laws prohibit an employer from discriminating against persons in all aspects of employment, including recruitment, selection, evaluation, promotion, training, compensation, discipline, retention and working conditions, because of their protected status.

Actually, Federal law REQUIRES discrimination based on race and sex. It's called Affirmative Action.

Best,
-jimbo

chrisd should be unhireable

[Anonymous Coward]

Refusing to hire someone who happened to work at SCO when this whole fiasco started is stupid. How can a software engineer or similar employee in a company of that size help what management says?

chrisd is the real loser here as he can't even spell "received" correctly on his corporate hiring page!

I think

[Znonymous Coward]

that the open source community should stop responging the SCO period. If you ignore them, maybe they will go away.

*sigh*

[stratjakt]

I've always had respect for Linus, the respect that I don't have for other OSS "advocates" like Stallman, Raymond or Perens.

Simply because Linus is the guy who just practices what the rest preach. He just keeps his mouth shut for the most part and works on the code. Instead of pontificating, he produces something that proved that the OSS model can work.

He doesn't spout off into diatribes about free vs Free, he doesn't rant and rave about technologies like the TCPA, just comments on how they can be implemented in Linux.

Please, Linus, don't drag yourself down to the level of the foaming mouthed nut. There's no shortage of zealots to badmouth SCO, and you're merely preaching to the choir.

Ultimately all you'll do is damage your image, when someone mentions Stallman or Raymond, do you immediately think of code they've written, or an image of them jumping up and down on a soapbox?

Stick to the tech, keep being an inspiration to true geeks, and not anti-gumment nutjobs.

Re:*sigh*

[Daniel_Staal]

Read his letter, I think you will find it lives up to your ideas of him. (It is very good. No posturing, no complaining, just a nice, sweet, 'show us the code, or please stop bugging daddy.')

Re:*sigh*

[gonvaled]

Are you new, misinformed, or do you have any other kind of problem?

Any of the advocates that you mention have made contributions to the Free Software comunity and, in some cases, in big amounts. They have written code - although code writing is not the only way to contribute (and not even the most difficult one)

Specifically, Mr. Stallmann has contributed dozens of programs to the Free Software world. He is one of the initiators of the movement. You can disagree with his views, but you can not say that he does not practive what he preaches. He has practiced a lot before preaching. If you do not know who started emacs, gcc, gdb, glibc, and so many other projects, you would better read a bit before posting such ignorant comments. If you do not know what those projects are, you should probably go back to school.

And pay attention to this: if the free software movement is to play an important role, it won't be thanks to its technical achievements (you can reach those achievements using other aproaches). It will be thanks to the freedom that it returns to its users.

Re:*sigh*

[Draxinusom]

Uh yeah, God forbid anyone should actually have an opinion on the work that they're doing. Hey Einstein, how about you just shut up and keep your opinions on the uses of atomic technology to yourself? Edward Teller, stop spouting off on your diatribes! Fire the FSF lawyers! Disband the EFF!

when someone mentions Stallman..., do you immediately think of code they've written, or an image of them jumping up and down on a soapbox?

When I think of Stallman I think of Emacs, GCC, and the FSF. Maybe you need to learn some history.

There is a place for apolitical techies like Linus and another place for visionaries and advocates like Stallman and Perens. This may be news to you, but code doesn't just float in the void; without the right legal and social environment OSS doesn't exist. It's fine for Linus to ignore SCO -- that's not his job to deal with it -- but if everyone ignored it we'd all be up shit creek when SCO walked out of some courtroom with legal rights to our code.

Re:oh this is funny

[Gibble]

That's whats so funny about this. If the linux community has this infringed code in it's source, then everyone can see it anyhow. So why would SCO want people to sign an NDA to see code that they allready can see?

Just point to the infringing code in the linux source...

Maybe

[Andy Dodd]

Mr. Codemonkey has been submitting resumes without success?

If they're applying for a job at a Linux company, shouldn't it be painfully fucking obvious that they're TRYING TO JUMP SHIP?

Why benefit SCO by making it *HARDER* for their employees to jump ship?

Linus Flame

[SyntheticTruth]

Linus' letter reminds me of a good example of a flame: biting, yet so intelligently written that you might miss it.

I'll hire SCO people!

[puzzled]

And their first task will be going through the SCO customer list in my geographic area and whacking each and every SCO system they can locate.

You have to view it from their perspective - years, some times decades of hard work, stock in the company trapped by trading rules, and scam artists from Canopy making it all just a sick joke.

If you really want to jab SCO, find a job for *every* person there who does real work, and do it quick.

Excellent points

[Andy Dodd]

Preventing an SCO employee from jumping ship by denying them a job opportunity *benefits SCO*.

Although a poster below made a good point - This could be intentional to avoid intellectual property problems. SCO noncompete agreements might likely make their employees ineligible to apply for employment at ChrisD's company in the first place.

That said, the wording of the statement on ChrisD's website is immature and vengeful.

More proper wording which I would accept is, "Due to intellectual property issues and conflicts of interest, we regret that we cannot hire former employees of the Santa Cruz Operation at this time."

Not a troll but...

[targo]

Which one is worse, the fool or the fool that follows him?
I find the attention/flames that everybody is giving to SCO highly surprising, as a result it is hard for bystanders to differentiate between the opponents. It would be much more mature of Linus and Co to either ignore the whole matter or respond professionally, instead of playing the same game.

Re:Not a troll but...

[jmv]

...and this is exactly what IBM's been doing to far.

Re:Not a troll but...

[superfast-scooter]

thing is, would you take it sitting down if someone started insulting you for the work you have been involved in for over a decade, and which you know is not wrong?
if these guys don't speak out (and they aren't really speaking out, just responding once in a while - look at the number of letters coming from sco, and the number from these guys), then you might start thinking "oh, why are these guys quiet? maybe there is some truth ...".
and anyway, which human being ever says "ohh, look he's so calm in the face of all this idiocy - i respect him" - in these days of the riaa and sco?

Re:Hiring ban

[BiOFH]

"chrisd notes that his company is making SCO employees unhireable."

So they're refusing to consider SCO employees for any of the open positions that they .. oh, they don't actually have any open positions right now.

Wow, that'll teach them a lesson.

Yes, but what's important is that Chris' company is an equal opportunity employer. Well... except when the mood strikes them not to be.

You are so out of touch with reality its scary

[NDPTAL85]

Look, the IT market is going to shit so fast it seems like diareah (sp?) and you're pissed at folks not wanting to abandon their already shrinking job market because of some stupid political stand?

Try explaining to your kids why you can't buy them food or pay for their school or why the lights just got shut off. An answer of "Oh well I had to make sure my stance on ensuring the freedom of Linux and GPL software everywhere was loud and clear. Sorry you feel faint from hunger but hey at least my startling irrelevant opinions on the computer industry's morality remain untarnished!"

I mean are you on 100% Genetically Enhanced Columbian Crack Cocaine? Janitors and receptionists? WTF would they care about Linux at all for? Its just a job for them. Most likely they aren't even AWARE of anything other than windows (I'll bet you $5 the receptionists at SCO or even Red Hat have Windows based PC's on their desks). This isn't the civil rights movement were talking about here. A LITTLE bit of perspective would do you a world of good.

Re:You are so out of touch with reality its scary

[pheared]

some stupid political stand

Let's not forget that SCO is trying to hijack the work of thousands. They are trying to collect from all Linux users. That's rather disturbing. It's a little different than a smear campaign against Linux.

Also, let's not forget that Chrisd is not required to hire you just because you worked at SCO. His note doesn't say whether he has actually had any SCO applicants either. No one at SCO is going to go hungry because Chris isn't hiring.

Re:You are so out of touch with reality its scary

[Mr_Silver]

Let's not forget that SCO is trying to hijack the work of thousands. They are trying to collect from all Linux users. That's rather disturbing. It's a little different than a smear campaign against Linux.

Lets not forget that they are trying. They haven't actually suceeded yet.

Or do you expect everyone from BT should have quit their jobs just because some idiot in legal tried to make a bit of money out of their supposid hyperlinks patent?

Re:You are so out of touch with reality its scary

[sogoodsofarsowhat]

Now the lights being shut off BULLSHIT, is just that. These people are not just subsistance living, hell almost no one in America just gets by. Hell our poor and the folks on welfare drive fucking cars.....Cut out some of the extras and non-needed shit and youll find you can live on a lot less money. Your point is that this is the ONLY job available and that is utter bullshit...

Re:You are so out of touch with reality its scary

[baggins2002]

So exactly when do you walk out? When they find out the company is using pirated software? How much? When they poison neighbors with chemicals? How many should die or become ill first? When they steal money from people through acts of fraud? What is fraudulent behavior? Is it legally manipulating the books to appear profitable? Is it advertising that the product you sell will protect you from monetary damages and then in very small print saying only up to the value of the software you purchased?
Damage studio's just said here is the line in the sand. If you are willing to stay with a company which has pushed the envelope this far, we don't want you. If you were unknowledgeable about what the company was doing and the potential impact it could have, we don't want you.
Basically they sent a message that we don't want employees, who would think this type of activity is okay. Geez, could you imagine what would have happened if some people at Enron said "You know this doesn't add up", I'm getting the hell out of here before I get associated with it and can't find a job to feed my family. Yet they were hiring up to the day they closed. I think it was the hippie's who said "Peace Love and anything goes man."

Re:You are so out of touch with reality its scary

[tarius8105]

There is a fine line between normal and being a zealot. Damage Studio drew a line in the sand, which also put them into the Zealot side. Think about this because as one guy said before, what is a person going to tell his kids after he walks out of his job? Yeah there is always Unemployment for 6 months, then welfare. So a family living in a normal house has to go live in a ghetto worrying about being shot every 10 minutes just because the major source of income decided to say "I have to put a idea before my family!"

Well put, BUT...

[azaris]

...clever comebacks and snide remarks make little difference for corporate execs and lawyers keeping an eye on this case.

While Torvalds is a Linux-figurehead, he's still a techie - which means his commentary will be drowned out by the SCO lawyers, CEO and PR drones babbling on. While /. won't listen to them, I fear the ignorant public (investors, analysts, lawyers, execs) will get a one-sided view as long as only SCO official representatives and Linux techies exchange rounds with these statements in front of the press. IBM won't comment since they're in legal proceedings, but where are all the rest?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I respectfully disagree

[burnin1965]

I think the responses should continue for two reasons:

1) While some people have become bored of the rhetoric, I am still enjoying the responses from the OSS leaders and representatives.

2) There are many people out there who on occasion happen to read an article about the SCO debate. If the response from the community is to stay silent then the masses will presume that all McBride says is true. Granted you may not care what the rest of the world thinks of you, however, as an OSS advocate I for one become angry when I'm portrayed as a commie, thief, drug addict, etc, etc.

I say keep the rebuttals coming.

burnin

I see a glimmer of goodness.

[trentfoley]

This whole charade might benefit Linux greatly. One of Linux's shortcomings is a lack of perception as to value. SCO, by demanding a license fee, has given a dollar amount for the value of a Linux installation. After SCO loses their case, their appraisal of Linux will remain. This could make it easier to convince clients and management to use Linux, by letting them see how much the software is worth ($700), and how much it costs ($0).

SCO wants to talk to Open Source developers about monetizing the software? By placing a dollar amount on the worth of Linux, they have just monetized it.

Too bad the credibility of SCO is next to worthless now.

Re:You choose who you work for

[pclminion]

However, you choose who you work for. By working for a company, you support its actions. You may not believe these actions are correct, but if you do nothing to change it, you are as guilty as those driving that bus.

Are you "hard of thinking" or something? Damage is saying "We won't hire you if you came from SCO." Why the hell should they quit, when the rest of the industry is telling them "Tough shit, you worked for SCO, and even if you quit for ideological reasons now that you know they are full of shit, we still aren't going to hire you."

How fucking childish.

For a non-native English speaker:

[Morglum]

For a non-native English speaker, Linus needs to be given credit for the subtle zinger at the end: "Until then, please accept our gratitude for your submission,". Nice double meaning on that last word there!

Blacklisting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Blacklisting is wrong.

Good grief, don't fuck with people.

...Could the Linux community maybe grow up?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am totally on-side that there is no real technical merit in the SCO claims, and that they are being litigious bastards.

However I think that the tone being adopted by the Linux community is possibly hurting our cause.

All of the open letters I've read from Linux "leaders", including the latest one from Linus, have been by turns condescending, sanctimonious, and needlessly insulting at times.

These things are being read by business leaders who are quite interested in how this whole thing will play out, and if they get the impression that Open Source is being led by a bunch of smug, whiny, business-insensitive geeks, they will stay away.

Al I'm hoping for is that the public responses written by the Linux champions are clear, confident, and professional, and not geeky bitch-slaps. We have the high ground here, there's no need to get personal or insulting.

And the brats who launched the DoS's against SCO, you're not helping.

Chrisd opened him self up to being sued.

[geekoid]

" We will immediately delete them, and the mail they came attached to, if recieved."

Violation of federal law, dumbass.
If I had Santa Cruz I would send you my resume, just so I can sue you and your little company.

Hiring a SCO person may be risk of future lawsuits

[djh101010]

This might not be (just) about being against SCOs ethics - given Darl's track record, there might be a very real possibility that if someone hires one of "his" people, he could come after that company and somehow claim that they have stolen "his" property (the intellectual property inside that person's head).

Problem with SCO is that since nothing they're doing makes sense, predicting future moves is equally difficult.

If only terrorism was our worst problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

The decline of America is coming from within, not without. I am more worried about bad laws perpetrated by my own government than I am about some stranger whom vaguely wishes me dead. Live Free or Die.

Re:If we had openings, we wouldn't hire you

[Anonymous Coward]

Um only is nothing like this situation. Try:

If the USA made a policy of not allowing any person who worked for a terrorist organization on future space flights, you can be pretty sure that if anyone cared they would applaud the decision.

A job is a choice, your gender is not. There is no reason why your past choices shouldn't effect your current opertunities.

I can understand why SCO employees are unhireable

[Bvardi]

From a legal standpoint they're tainted. Anyone who works for SCO might have had access to the source code at any point - which means if you are developing your own code, since SCO (Well Canopy group anyways) has proven to sue at the drop of a hat without any real evidence, you CAN'T hire any kind of technical staff who recently worked at SCO without potentially exposing yourself to a frivilous lawsuit.

They might well launch the suit just to punish someone jumping ship for that matter - they haven't exactly proven themselves to have much of an ethical track record as a company after all.

Until the suits are settled and the legal issues over with (and SCO buried likely), you're opening yourself up for some potential liability hiring ANY technical staff who worked for SCO.
(Management is a moot point - I mean who would want to work with them anyways? Well possibly certain mafia shell companies.... no... even the mafia has limits....)

Re:oh this is funny

[dmaxwell]

The problem is that SCO doesn't own every kernel contributor's work. SCO has thus far accused the kernel devs of theft. SCO "taking control" of Linux is undisputably theft and if they try it they should pay for it with their corporate existance. Even if we did start over with 2.2, SCO or some other theiving scumbag would make the same sort of "undisclosable" accusation. No, SCO has to be called decisively on this issue. If you pay the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane.

Re:I'd rather die hungry and die honest

[Raptor CK]

I'm sure your kids will think of you as a great hero when they're starving for your morals.

Re:I'd rather die hungry and die honest

[Psyborgue]

For your information, there was a time when i lived on the streets of southern california and did feel hunger so yes i know what i speak about. And yes it was a result of my refusal to Compromise. Now that i am doing well, i cherish the memory that i didn't. Would i take it back? never. There may be very few things in this world worth dying for, but i beleive self integrity is one of them.

Is it true?

[aduzik]

In all this name-calling and mud-slinging, has anyone actually asked if code in the Linux kernel is stolen from SCO? Why don't we get an impartial observer, say, Bill Gates, who would just as happily see both SCO and Linux disappear, to decide which one should be wiped off the face of the planet. All of these attacks proceed from the basis that SCO's accusations are groundless. What they need to do is *prove it*. None of us have any means whatever of knowing if SCO is telling the truth.

Let's find out for certain that SCO's lawyers are nitwits, slap them across the face for wasting our time, then call it a day. If SCO is so confident in their accusation, they would have nothing to fear by letting someone *actually compare* the code bases. How do they expect to win a lawsuit if they won't present evidence to support their case?

Why don't they just publish their source code and let us all do diff's on it? If we've all already seen it before anyway (in Linux), then it can't harm them any further!

show me the code...

[josepha48]

If SCo were to show the actual code to the Linux community, without the NDA, and give them a change to code around it or recode it or remove it then I'd have more faith in SCO's claims. As it stands all they have are claims. Well that would be like me claiming I was the original creator of UNIX and that AT&T stole my code and ideas. Okay I wasn't born then, but hey I would have thought of it.

What SCO has done is play a legal game, and from what I have heard that is what SCO's management is good at doing. They are also playing the stock game, where what they are currently claiming is driving their stock up, so management can sell off their stock and make a profit.

They stil have not shown one single peice of evidance that shows that this code was in UNIX first and not open source / BSD or Linux. Yeah there are code fragments that do exist, but who owns the copyright?

Guess we shall all have to wait and see who wins he lawsuit and who is left in the end. Their lawsuit almost remids me of the RIAA, only the RIAA has shown that they own the songs, whereas SCO hasn't shown squat. So until SCo can prove that they own the code in Linux I'm not paying them a dime, and when they do prove it I'll switch my Linux box to BSD before I give them a f***** dime!

Re:so, you're logic is

[gonvaled]

Words have little value if you do the opposite than what you preach. Otherwise, you are just being consistent with your ideas.

Unhirable?

[Spazmania]

Any resumes which include the Santa Cruz Operation after May of 2003 will be immediately deleted as well.

Er... What does the Santa Cruz Operation have to do with any of this? The SCO Group is the former Caldera. They bought SCO Unix from the Santa Cruz Operation, but they did not buy the Santa Cruz Operation itself. Thus current employees of Tarantella (formerly known as the Santa Cruz Operation) have nothing to with the SCO Group's mess.

Re:Darl to Linux

[Mr. Darl McBride]

Fooled the dumbass mods yet again!

Please stop trolling, or post logged-in so the moderators can tell you whether you're being helpful or not.

Nobody thinks this is the real Darl. The moderators are not fooled. Only in your strange little world is this even a possibility.

Re:I'd rather die hungry and die honest

[FileNotFound]

I find your arguments laughable.

Do you really expect your children will learn morals and respect when their daddy can't find a job and works nights as a rent a cop? I doubt it.

All it will teach is that thier father is an idiot and that the economy sucked.

I want my children to respect me because they will understand that I valued their future far more than I valued my beliefs and morals.

SCO employees might be scared if....

[Anonymous Coward]

Damage studio had any job openings.

Lets face it, the working stiffs at SCO are just happy to have a pay check in todays world. I can see not letting Darl interview for you CEO possition but are going to hold it against a programer who sits in a cube and writes code all day because his CEO is sue happy? If so, you should be the one not given a job.

Re:It's precisely the opposite of this attitude

[drkich]

Okay, let us play this game then.

Tell us for whom you work.

I am sure that I can find something that your employer did that someone, somewhere, will feel just as strongly as you. They believe with all their hearts that you should take a stand and quit your job.

Let us see if you will do it.

Why not be a voice of reason on the inside?

[doc_traig]

Look at you, all principled and what-not. It's easy to talk big. When you're looking down the barrell of sudden unemployment in a tight market at your own hand it's a potentially harmful tipping point for your career and those you love. See if your wife cares about your principles when you're missing your second mortgage payment in a row and you can't look your son in the eye because you can't afford your new eyeglasses prescription...

Damage Studio's Postion Reminds Of Freedom Fries

[zoomba]

In light of France's refusal to go along with US action in Iraq, there was a public and governmental outcry against all things French. We had "freedom fries" and French wine and cheese was thrown out. Many people here directly criticized these actions as stupid, even the Slashdot editors voiced their opinions through commentary and "department" titles for articles. The sentiment was that it was stupid to blame the rank and file French citizen or French business for the actions of its government.

The same thing should apply here. Why blame the rank-and-file employee of a company whose management is doing something unpopular? Does Joe Programmer have any influence on the legal machinations of his company? No, he just churns out code for a paycheck. And saying "Well, he should quit his job because his employer is doing those things" is just plain ridiculous and doesn't take reality into consideration. The need to eat and possibly support a family generall trumps most personal beliefs.

Just as you can't expect someone to renounce French citizenship because their government does something you don't like, you can't expect an employee to quit because their company does something you don't like. We are putting the burden on the people who can't do anything about the problem. Blacklisting SCO employees does nothing to the people who actually matter in this case, if they don't give a crap about 90% of the IT industry, I bet they don't care about their own employees.

If you worked for a University and some group was doing research that was highly controversial and that you disagreed with on moral or ethical reasons, would you quit because the organization you also happen to work for allows that sort of thing to go on? Should a math professor quit in protest of some experiment going on in the biology department? Should the actions of the company or larger employer actually be held against the little people who work for them?

It's like blaming the White House janitorial staff for the bad policy decisions made by the President and refusing to hire them because they happened to previously work there.

It's stuff like this that makes me realize that for all the screaming about morals and ethics and fair-play that many people do here, that it's mostly an act, one that they discard as soon as it goes against what they like.

How would ChrisD and the rest of the slashdot editors react if a company posted that they would not hire any programmers connected with X Y or Z open source projects?

-Z

The Main Point

[fanatic]

From Linus's letter:

All of our source code is out in the open, and we welcome you point to any particular piece you might disagree with.

This is so beautiful because it so totally destroys SCO's "reason" for not disclosing the infringing code: the argument that they can't disclose it becauses it's proprietary (even though, by their own statements, it's already in the publicly available kernel source code).

Characteristically, Linus curts stright to the crux of the matter.

Denial of Service?

[fiannaFailMan]

These charges led to lawsuits from both Red Hat Inc. and IBM, and appear to have inspired a number of denial of service attacks on SCO's Web site.

Is it true that this turned out to be a self-inflicted thing designed to look like there was a DOS attack going on?

Re:If we had openings, we wouldn't hire you

[Monkelectric]

Actually, it's very cool. Why hire someone who is dumb enough not only to have continued working for SCO, but also to put it on their resume?

That's a pretty bad attitude there. Don't you think there are alot of talented people who worked for scum companies like Enron, Worldcom, Adelphia and SCO? You have to remember those companies were some of the most prestigious companies in the world right until the went to shit :)

Re:I'd rather die hungry and die honest

[rifter]

You have NO idea how happy I am to be working. I know people who are graduating IST/CS right now and have NOTHING but 50k-70k in loans. I can tell you right now that even the most moral of them will BEG for a job at SCO, right wrong be damned. You wouldn't be so sure about "doing the right thing" when your car got repoed and you filed for bancrupcy..

And they are absolute fools. Trust me, I have learned this the hard way. You do not want to take a bad job just so you can have one. It is bad for you, your career, and your self-esteem. It is never worth it. Yes, they feel like begging SCO for a job now, and I feel their pain. But they will thank themselves a couple years from now if they don't do it.

Besides, it is ridiculous to work at a job you hate, or for a company you cannot believe in, for any reason. I have generally chosen companies based on agreeing with their moral stance and their product, and this has turned out best for me. YMMV, but realize that if you hate your job you will not do a good job, and not doing a good job will not help your career at all. Working at a job you hate, for a company you hate, is not good for your health, self-esteem, or career. It is the stupidest thing you can do, regardless of the rationalizations you try to make for it.

Re:I'd rather die hungry and die honest

[HopeOS]

I want my children to respect me because they will understand that I valued their future far more than I valued my beliefs and morals.

People who sacrifice their morals are pitied, not respected. I'd prefer that my children respect me for showing strength in the face of adversity. My wife certainly does. Nothing worse than to be pitied by one's own children.

-Hope

Re:I'd rather die hungry and die honest

[fucksl4shd0t]

Admirable though this sentiment is, I can't help but wonder if it is being opined by someone who has never felt real hunger.

I agree with this.

Me? Given the choice between dying honest and living in guilt, I'd choose to live in guilt. There are very, very few things in this world worth dying for.

I agree with this, because you're talking about yourself. :) I, on the other hand, have quit jobs because I didn't like what the company was doing. Now, I didn't just walk out, granted. I first found another job and THEN quit. That's the right way to leave a job. It's entirely possible that there's a couple of programmers at SCO who are doing the same thing, but just haven't found a job yet.

I find the statement "All resumes submitted by SCO employees after May 2003" to be semantically equivalent to "If Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave the country within 48 hours." Both, in my opinion, are said by villains. I would also add that if any resumes are sent to my company after December, 2003, from employees of Damage Studios will be deleted.

Ok, that last bit was a joke.

Here's the short of it:

Yes, a person can and should leave an employer for moral reasons. If you don't like the way your eomployer treats its customers, employees, whatever. Yes, you should leave them.

No, you shouldn't make your family suffer for it. Yes, you should set a good example.

In this situation is an excellent opportunity to show your kids that you can quit a job without feeling any guilt or loyalty towards the employer you're leaving. You also get to show them "Look kids, if it were just me, I'd've left this job awhile back and just went hungry. But I can't do that. I have to make sacrifices for my family, so my family can live. So I'm looking for a job, and in the meantime ShortCOX is paying the bills". What better example could you set? You cover idealisticcally terminating your job, making sacrifices for the good of your family, and how to quit a job without fucking yourself over all in one go! What an opportunity!

Linus gets what ESR and Bruce don't

[Rogerborg]

That SCO is so full of bullshit that by repeating and denying any particular version of their fantasy-land claims, we only give credence to them. This is the letter than ESM and Bruce should have written. Short, to the point, and utterly dismissive.

But it could be even better. I hope that from now on, if open/free advocates decide to bite Darl's trolling, that they restrain themselves to just saying "Identify the infringing source," and not one word more. Unless it's "fuckwad".

The problem is that chrisd is HELPING SCO!

[Rimbo]

"So when do you draw the line? What if your company was making dangerous chemicals and not disposing of them properly? What if they were making chemical weapons? What if they were selling chemical weapons to terrorists?"

The point some of the above posters have made is that you can't draw the line, if people like chrisd will find you guilty by association. If more companies did what chrisd did, then SCO employees CAN'T jump ship, even if they want to.

Why help SCO? What you SHOULD be doing is giving SCO employees INCENTIVES to leave!!!!

Re:I'd rather die hungry and die honest

[MoneyT]

Actualy, I have more respect for my father because he quit working a temp job at an electronics store (he had previously been fired) because the owner had questionable business practices. Never mind that he was unemployed for 6 months after that and we had to be very tight with money. I hav a hell of a lot fo respect for him for doing what he did.

Re:WTF is WRONG with you people?!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The SCO situation exists now and is a problem now.
The 09/11/2001 terrorist attacks were 2 years ago. Get over it.

Open Letters

[jd]

Way way too intelligent. :)

Seriously, I read through the letter and have to concur with everything you've written. Unfortunately, neither my opinion nor yours is going to even elicit a response from SCO, never mind a change of heart.

If SCO were sincere on any point, they'd be replying to letters written in genuine sincerity, where genuine, non-hostile questions are posed.

So far, letters like yours have typically been met with a deathly silence. We don't have dialogue, we have two asynchronous monologoues in opposite directions. (Us responding has no meaning if our output is sent to /dev/null. Without interpretation, the distinction between signal and noise is purely convenience.)

If this is to depart the Twilight Zone and enter the real world, we need more than merely good arguments. We need to make it impossible for this non-resolution state of being to continue.

SCO distribute a lot of GNU software with SCO UnixWare, for example. If SCO are in violation of the GPL, then the FSF could probably fire off a "Cease and Desist" letter. This wouldn't "hurt" SCO, but might get their shareholders to push for a faster resolution. And, in the end, the shareholders are the ones who can make or break SCO.