Slashdot Mirror
Groklaw Sends A Dear Darl Letter
Ralph Yarro writes "The Inquirer is carrying the text of an open letter sent to Darl McBride from members of the open source community at Groklaw. This is a lengthy and detailed response to the open letter Darl sent a while back."
Some of the best SCO research I have ever seen. Wow!! It's nice to have the whole story out there.
For those of you wondering what this whole SCO vs. Linux thing was about, I can finally reveal the truth.
:(
As chairman and CEO of Canopy I've done a lot for the Open Source community. I've promoted investments in companies like Linux Networx, who make the third fastest supercomputer in the world and use Linux to do it. Companies like Lineo the masters of embedded Linux. Also Trolltech producing the incredible QT widget set used by the KDE project. And of course Caldera, producing the finest Linux distribution and pushing forwards the United Linux initiative.
But one shadow lay over my record of achievements. Despite all I had done for the Linux and Open Source communities, I still had never achieved the triumph I most desperately sought. Not once had an article I submitted been accepted by Slashdot
I'm sure my fellow Slashdotters can understand how this gnawed away at my soul.
Together with Darl McBride and David Boies I hatched a master plan, to achieve my dream of an accepted Slashdot article or to destroy Linux trying.
Caldera would purchase IP rights from the Santa Cruz Operation and with funding from Sun and Microsoft would use them as the springboard to launch a devastating legal and PR blitz against Linux. As part of this Darl would write a searing open letter to the Open Source community, drawing responses in return. One of these from Groklaw would give me the opportunity I needed...
As you can see everything has gone exactly to plan. I have my successful Slashdot submission, and I'm sure that looking back on it you can all see it was worth any 'collateral damage' along the way.
Darl, you can call off the dogs now.
God bless you all.
Ralphie
The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
September 19, 2003 Torvalds Announces Linux "A Hoax" SANTA CLARA, CALIF. -- In a shocking announcement Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux operating system kernel, revealed that the wildly successful Linux was "an elaborate hoax." "Alan [Cox] and I just made it up," said Torvalds, "We wanted to have our own OS but didn't know how to make one and neither of us could afford a subscription to MSDN. It's been real hell faking all of those patch submissions for the last twelve years. I'm just glad it's over." Torvalds went on to describe how Linux has been assembled over the years from stolen code, mostly from SCO's Unixware server operating system. Large portions were also lifted from Novell's NetWare 3 and Microsoft's Altair BASIC. When asked if he felt any remorse over the affair he replied, "Sorta. But everybody does it. The KDE project is mostly de-compiled Windows code and Eric Raymond copied 'The Cathedral and the Bazaar' verbatim from an MIT enrollment brochure. Most open-source developers are just coders who couldn't hack it in the real world where everybody runs Windows." Concluding his announcement Torvalds encouraged Linux users to "either purchase a legitimate license from SCO or install GNU HURD." Alan Cox declined to comment.
Everyone who is concerned about this issue should read this letter, they're really giving the GPL some shark's teeth.
On a more serious note, maybe this is what it takes to get some real "street cred" for Free SW/Open Source among Corporate Amerika. It's just a bummer for me that things have to go *that* far in the 1st place.
C|N>K
And here I am getting all my news from scodot...
Your company's website does almost nothing to explain what it is your company does. Did you use some sort of automatic business phrase generation program to create it?
"A dynamic operating company"
What the hell does that mean?
Obviously, the SCO FUD machine will not halt under it's own misguided intentions. So it only makes sense that members of the community fight SCO on thier own grounds and at thier own game. It looks like the Linux owners claim of protection under the GPL is far a far stronger argument for suit than any 10 lines of copied source embedded deep within the kernel. It fills me with pride to read the calm, well thought words of a community under fire. I will sleep a little better at night knowing that serious action is awaiting SCO at the end of thier grab for cash profit scheme.
open letters: C,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z
one closed region: A,D,O,P,Q,R
two closed regions: B
Despite the publicity SCO's claims are receiving, they are actually unimportant. There is no legal leg for them to stand on. This back and forth debate is uninteresting. Yes, SCO's claims were outrageous, but that is obvious even without someone pointing it out in detail.
So in response, I am writing a closed letter to both SCO and the open source community. And no one can read it since it's closed. So there!
It was time for some New SCO-News! I didn't now what to do this weekend!
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
Maybe Slashdot doesn't post any stories that show SCO to be right, because SCO isn't right? Has that ever occurred to you?
If you can identify any infringing source code, please do so, prove it is infringing, and let us remove it, because we surely do not want it.
We do not need or want your legacy UNIX source code
which reveals that your call for indemnification is, to put it bluntly, FUD
We would think, however, that a capable information technology company that sells web services software would have the technical know-how to handle a DDoS attack, if that is really what happened. Most such companies do handle them without being brought to their knees for a week. We are glad that you say you have since learned technical steps you can take to protect yourself in the future.
Your inability to make your Linux business a success, while unfortunate for you, parallels your company's failure to make your UNIX business a success
If you're looking for a successful business model, you might consider the tried and true model of satisfied customers.
Man, that was a fun read!
I have noticed that they have not FILED any copyright infringement actions, despite their numerous allegations that Linux infringes on their copyrighted code and mentions of the rights of copyright holders in their legal pleadings and press releases. No matter how loudly they proclaim infringement of copyright, they aren't willing to use the appropriate federal laws (USC-17) to protect this supposedly infringed upon "IP". I wonder why.
If SCO has copyright material that has been infringed upon, they have to go to the INFRINGER (whoever has access to their code and copied it, meaning the code and not just a work-alike clean-room code, into the kernel) for damages. End users and unwitting publishers of infringing materials are not listed in USC-17 as liable for infringement. You can't get damages from a publisher if one author of a short story collection lied about the authorship, nor can you collect from the bookstores and purchasers.
If they have proof that Red Hat is distributing infringing material, they first have to notify RH what the infringing material is. As the innocently infringing publisher, RH has the chance to double check the material, and either remove it or check its pedigree dispute the infringing nature of it.
The only time a publisher can be nailed for damages is if the plaitiff can prove they knew, or could reasonable have been expected to know, that a work was copyright. This covers sleazy anthology publishers who don't bother to get permissions and pay royalties, and anyone stupid enough to accept a well-known work of fiction from anyone but the real author.
This letter has a certain, "Declaration of Independence" feel to it. I like how it lists the crimes of King Darl.
Esoteric reference.
There are not a lot of stories that claim SCO might be right -- other then SCO press releases off of PR Newswire.
/. has linked almost ALL SCO stories, pro or con. It is just there are a lot more con than pro.
SCO has not presented any proof, and only made unsubstantiated claims. Until they substantiate, everything they say is open to question. The few times they *DID* try and present proof, it was demonstrated to be incorrect and they tried to spin their way out of it.
Finally,
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
I like how slashdot will post any and all stories that are anti-SCO, but never post any stories that might actually show SCO to be right.
They posted the open letter from Darl McBride. If his own words, complete and in context, are anti-SCO or don't show SCO to be right then I doubt there's much more Slashdot can do.
The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
...that arguing with idiots can only (eventually) bring you down to their level. Proof of this hypothesis can be easily found by browsing any Slashdot discussion at -1....
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
really a very good one. My respect to the people at Groklaw for writing such a well written, well researched letter to our dear friend Mr. McBride. I, for one, welcome our newfound brotherhood and companionship, even though it is at the expense of our friends at SCO.
Veni, Vidi, Velcro!
That's the first time I see this connection being made. I'm not familiar with SCO's products, so if someone may give a bit more info on what LKP exactly is I should be grateful.
Also, is this some new "official" rumour or it's being floating around for a while????
1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
In the last sections about "Who Makes Up the Open Source Community Today?", I feel ILM (Industrial Lights+Magic) should be included for their work on www.openexr.org, which is an open-source High Dynamic Range image file format which is useful for CG in films. Knowing how expensive CG work is in film-making, such a contribution at this low-level is indeed commendable.
www.rexguo.com - Technologist + Designer
this gets in Computer World, eWeek, or even mabe a link to this from the SCOX page on finance.yahoo.
$1 says we don't see this attributed anywhere in the "major IT media".
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Man, they really SCOlded those foo's.
If the comparison shows "no code matches" you can say so. A SCO licensee saying "We've looked into the problem ourselves, and feel Linux is unique." tells nothing about SCO, or their secrets. If the comparison suggests SCO adopted Linux code, one would be obligated to report same to proper authorities. NDA, or not. As a licensee failure to report, indeed failure to do the due diligence of this test, may rope you into commission of willful infringement and/or conspiracy to do so. If the comparison suggests infringements, and you cannot determine the source, you may be obligated to determine same under rules of due diligence. This would include filing appropriate reports with authorities. If the comparison suggests Linux adopted SCO code, then you, as one SCO licensee to another, can likely exchange that information. Further, you or your guilty peers could (and probably must) publish corrections for your error. Now, the comparator won't catch is code that's been "infected" by SCO's newly envisoned concept of the world's first, *truely* deadly, viral license. IBM claims to hold valid copyrights as independent works for code they also contributed to the Unix V codebase. SCO claims to "control" any and all such code, and all that came in contact with it, however remotely. (Yes, I assume SCO fells they now excercise license control over nearly all of IBM's code base assets. Mainframe to wrist watch. I can't imagine how their theory can hold otherwise, actually.)
...by everyone who can be located, who has contributed to GNU/Linux kernels. As SCO claims that the GPL is bogus, they obviously do not intend to follow it, and, in fact (as this open letter points out) have violated it.
:)
I'm sure the LKP code would look really nice made public as part of the discovery process, if there truly is GPL code stolen by SCO in it.
Get off my launchpad!
They'd included the link in my signature.. ;-)
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
They're a ventrue capital firm. They don't "do" anything. They invest money in other companies that "do stuff", so that they can "do" it better, and Canopy can take a bit in return for their investment.
A policeman, truck driver, paralegal, and stockbroker. Now all they need now is an indian...
in the episode where homer becomes a restaurant and food critic, one of his fellow critics uses the line "I think it's time to send John Deere a Dear John."
Somehow the headline of this story just reminds me of it.
ok, yes. this post was completely useless and adds no useful information like many many other posts out there.
The economic viability of a business, the skills and ambitions of its workers, and the fickle desires of a market are all uncertainties that cannot be judged a priori. Even some of the most absurd business plans have generated windfalls. Every business has a chance--every business has a possibility of success.
But SCO is the exception to this rule, even more than BRE-X that people keep mentioning here. The facts are already in, enough of them anyways. Even if there IS inappropriate code in Linux from UNIX, it is impossible that end users are liable. The law on these matters is clear. If SCO had patents, then there may be end-user liability. But by their own admission, SCO owns neither patents, copyrights, trademarks on any of the code that they claim ownership to. They claim trade secrets but their justification for this flies in the face of many years of case law.
The only logical way I can see SCO winning any significant amount of cash is by ratifying new amendments to the constitution. Everyone they are charging with illicit activity has acted in good faith, and SCO cannot refute this. Furthermore, SCO was a willing participant to the very activity they are charging others with, that is until McBride came on. It's hard to charge someone with vandalism if you helped them spray-paint your house.
SCO has a greater chance of being successful sticking to their core business than they do in litigation. And even if their winnings in litigation are substantial, there is no way that the money they would collect would be recurring. The very idea of Linux is antithetical to everything SCO is doing. So if there is infringement, SCO will eventually have to show it, and it will be removed. And no significant number of people will chose to continue paying SCO for their kernel rather than migrating to the newly minted liability free kernel that is sure to come out days after any successful judgements from SCO.
In short, every which way SCO can turn is set by obstacles. The motion to dismiss against RHAT is the latest example. They can dispute RHAT's claims, or claim that there was no dispute. Either way, RHAT's knight has SCO's queen and rook forked, and SCO just had to give up a valuable chess piece.
Your inability to make your Linux business a success, while unfortunate for you, parallels your company's failure to make your UNIX business a success. Perhaps the problem isn't Linux, the GPL, or the open source business model.
What I don't get is the stock price. SCOX has gone up, and up, and up, and is now at more than $19. This in spite of several pieces of evidence suggesting SCO has no case at all, and no evidence that they have a case that is worth anything (Just lots of bluster).
:) I'm thinking it will be at less than $1 a year from now - but Wall Street does not appear to agree thus far...?
Do the Wall Street types know something that we don't about the likelihood of SCO actually winning in court, or are they just massively ignorant about how much SCO is going to go down once this issue gets heard in a court of law?
I think both of those alternatives are scary. Particlarly as i sold short SCOX at $16
-- As long as the answer is right, who cares if the question is wrong?
There was a case where some RedHat employee submitted BSD licensed code to the Linux kernel without following the license, i.e. he claimed to have written it himself instead of including the original copyright notice as demanded by the BSD license. Here is the corresponding slashdot story.
While this was pretty ugly, it has been resolved quickly. So, while it is incorrect to say that there "has never been a claim of copyright infringement", you cannot blame anyone for not dealing with it properly. SCO could have had the same proper treatment, if they only had told people what code exactly would be the problem, but until now, they refused to.
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! Next McBribe will be showing off a server stats chart to stock holders as proof of sco's growing relevance in the high tech world.
This Comment was generated with the Comment-O-Matic for SCO Stories.
Publicly traded companies automatically get their ticker symbol included in every release they issue. This is required so the releases will index properly on the hundreds of Web sites and databases carrying PR Newswire copy. The use of ticker symbols NOT belonging to the company issuing the news release will only be permitted if the news involving the second company is determined to be "material" by PR Newswire or if the ticker belongs to the issuing organization's parent company or subsidiary. If applicable, please list additional tickers and respective exchanges: For releases that contain ticker symbols that are not materially-related or do not fit the above criteria, the use of the second party's ticker symbol is allowed only with the written permission from that second party. Please attach authorized permission from any such companies.
If you want to get your release onto a company's financials, you need to get it onto Reuters, AP, or Bloomberg.
I like how slashdot will post any and all stories that are anti-SCO, but never post any stories that might actually show SCO to be right.
Why is this? Where's the Fair and Balanced coverage? Slashdot will never be more than a joke if it still practices this amateurish kiddie journalism.
Have you actually seen any pro-SCO articles? And I don't mean the FUD paid for by the likes of Microsoft/Sun/SCO/Canopy/Gartner..
If you want pro-SCO FUD then just check out the major press outlets as all they have been supplying for the last 8 months has been pro-sco.
At least this article uses facts to back it's statements unlike ALL the major press rubbish.
---- There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't
Wow,. This is some seriously well formulated legal writing
.... NEVER ???
... lot of repressed angre there !! )
Very clean and understandable.. TO THE POINT.
We yet have to see this level of sophistication from the SCO folks.
We'll probably get it
( and they are so Bludy friendly, are they not ?
You'd wonder at the amount of research this
.... (drum roll) ...
:-)
group has done if they can't come up with
something better than that.
I've to offer you
a *technical* grandmother, and (ex-)Sequent
employee at that !
Now, go out and find her
"The record shows which method has done a better job of policing source code, which reveals that your call for indemnification is, to put it bluntly, FUD."
So are they saying Fear Uncertanty & Doubt?
or should I read:
"...your call for indemnification is, to put it bluntly, F**cked Up Darl."
Darl, you're a fsckwad. Go away.
paintball
I hope everyone here takes the time to read this well written, documented and thoroughly enjoyable "Open Letter". It should be the example of every discourse that happens on ./ - especially when compared to SCO's letter. Each point of the original letter was carefully, thoroughly, and fairly addressed. There was quite a bit of documentation backing up each claim, and there was a healthy expectation that SCO should be following specific guidelines, along with an understanding and explanation of how those guidelines had been agreed upon by SCO. There were carefully phrased warnings of the consequences of breaking these agreements, without resorting to threats. Note: these warnings did not discuss the havoc that these remedies would cause for SCO, so I am defining them as being warnings instead of threats. Anyway, point is, this letter is a good example that our community should attempt to emulate, in my humble (but correct) opinion.
Seriously. I don't mean that I don't care about the fate of linux, because I do (very much).
But I DO NOT care about every little open letter sent from Darl's dog to his grandmother regarding OSS.
Lets get back to 'stuff that matters.'
I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
Dotted: i j
Open: c f h k l m n r s t v w x y z
One closed region: a b d e g o p q
Ceci n'est pas une sig
Weather SCO will back down out of this or weather they will keep claiming unprooved facts to avoid admitting they "might be wrong".
Also, I wonder if (are they any?!) linux users that have paid for these so called licences will get refunds when this case falls apart.
The longer this drags on, the more arguments between the OSS community, relivant organisations that have IP rights in the Unix field - the more tangled this legal mess will become.
When will it end?!
-- Jim
-- If at first you don't succeed, lie!
Name a single pro article. There has not been a one.
"Sufferin' succotash."
that sig is the best one-line bait evar.
So sad that I didn't bother to put it in before.
love, #!!!!!!!!!!!!!100%tirel
The only thing I didn't like about the letter was that they failed to mention SCO's claims about derivative technologies in Linux.
If it's true that SCO's claim that some technologies (Journaled File Systems, etc), were bound by the SysV contract signed between AT&T and Unix companies then that part of SCO's complaint has merit.
Wouldn't it have been better to release this letter on a Monday morning for maximum news exposure? Who is going to read it on a Saturday? By the time the work week comes around, it could be easily missed.
W
On that note-- it would be cool to set up a fund to get Linux position statements like this in the NYT or other news publications. Does anyone know about a Linux Publicity Fund or something similar?
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I've been following the stock price for SCOX since the start of this stupid debacle.
It's up on very small volume, little trades of 100 shares here, 100 shares there. Any time that someone sells a block larger than 5k other than in after-hours trading, the price takes a $0.25-1.00 nosedive pretty much on the spot.
It's up on gross speculation and market maker playing around with the valuation- it's nothing more than a bubble like Enron or WorldCom, and it's going to implode just like them soon enough.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
They listed the various demographics of their group to illustrate that the FOSS community is composed of a broad spectrum of everyday folks, not counter-cultural anarchists (like me) who wish to destroy copyright.
This is an important fact. SCO has been painting the FOSS commmunity as a bunch of anarcho-socialist, pot-smokin', JD drinkin', code-stealin', wife-beatin', non-conformin', US-hatin', anti-Freedom neo-hippies. SCO presents this as strawman character assassination, and so Groklaw points out that we are really just everyday folks who love freedom and respect copyright, and not at all un-American just because we think SCOX is a bunch of self-loathing, Bill Gates butt-munching, reality-distortion cocktail swilling, free-software hating, pug-faced pirates with rods bigger than Wall Street stuck so far up their asses they will require the jaws of life for extraction.
Or am I the only one who thinks that?
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Suppose the SCO issue were true (Once upon a time, in a land far, far away...)....
The Linux kernel comes to me as source code. So suppose I vi in there and remove the bad code. Then I compile and run. SCO can look anytime they like and see that I'm running Linux with a 2.4 kernel but they can pucker up and kiss my ass.
Right?
Or am I missing something here? It just seems to me that even if the courts did find some truth to their story there is still an easy way around them.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
It targets only a small group of geek-news readers.
:)
:)
1. It is too long and sophisticated.
Most of the people will read only a few
paragraphs.
2. It does not contain an explicit threat/gain.
That makes SCO reports more popular among the
general public.
OS community still have to learn how to make a buzz. This war is not about the law it is about
public attention.
BTW FNAL(DOE) is also ~80% linux.
Pessimist is a well informed optimist.
Hehe. Or maybe they just lacked the faith and started whining "I wanna go home" and "I want my TV" (yes, I am aware that there were no TV's back then) and stuff, so they were punished and never reached California. Or maybe they just got lost as they had no biblical pillar of fire showing them the way.
Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
If you compare the data at ThomsonFN.com that shows some information on who is buying and selling you will notice something peculiar about SCOX.
SCOX
RHAT
IBM
MSFT
If you look at the pie charts at the bottom of the pages, it seems that only retail traders are willing to let anyone know they are buying/selling SCOX. For the most part the known SCOX traders are people using online trading or calling up their broker and making a trade request.
There are virtually no institutional traders who are willing to publicly advertise they are trading SCOX.
Now all of these charts show a large portion of traders that are unknown, however, I have a suspicion that the unknown traders in SCOX are the driving force behind raising the stock price. And my suspicion tells me that it may be for two reasons, 1) it creates an impression that the market has faith in the SCO case and expects a big windfall coming to SCO, and 2) with SCO execs dumping stock this is one way that someone could provide a payoff without directly transfering cash to SCO or its execs.
Of course this is purely speculation and I could just be paranoid. You'll have to make your own judgement as to what the numbers mean.
burnin
I sent them some information about my wicked screensaver.
This is a much more rational, thorough, intellectual response than the cliched decapitated horse's head I wanted to send to Darl. Kudos!
Thanks for the ROTFLOL thing.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Interesting thing to note is that in the modern US, Jews are FAR over-represented in pornography-related industries. More of the male performers, you know, the same six guys that are in every movie, are jewish, as are a surprising fraction of the women.
I know that's true in the rest of the entertainment industry as well, but I think it's very interesting to note that yes, the tradition of working in necessary but unsavory professions has in fact continued.
-- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
Amusing, but interesting that you didn't have the guts to post with your name....
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
Because the truth is - the mainstream press and the general public just don't get it do they? Look at SCO's price right now and tell me that makes any sense whatsoever!
I was reading another article on some pro-MS rag where they actually quoted some PHB as saying that he'd be glad to pay off SCO just to get them to 'lay off' with the legal action. Yeah, like that'll ever happen - this is their BREAD AND BUTTER now!
We here at Slashdot and others in the 'community' might take the time, but the truth is, SCO knows how to spin anything to the general public. As a tactic, it's so much harder to defend an accusation than make 100 more.
*LISTEN*
That's the sound of 'ol Darl(ing) firing up the PR machine again with more outrageous statements. Remember - only the sane occasionally question whether they really are.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Well they where only outsiders because they believed they where special people chosen by god and that everyone else was inferior so they could not let themselves assimilate into another civilization like all the other "homeland"less ethnic groups that where around then...
and explains things rather well, and should be required reading for any company concerned about Linux or the GPL.
However, since SCO is essentially an extortion racket, it's irrelevant to them.
This is like writing John Giotti a letter saying that crime doesn't pay. Or writing Saddam Hussein a letter saying a country runs better under a democracy (does it? Looking around, I'm beginning to wonder...)
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
from the article: "We also have experienced UNIX programmers among us who personally witnessed the history of UNIX since its inception, participated in its development, and know the software well."
Nice job guys. Way to point out that some of your programmers are tainted, having seen unix source code. Therefore the Linux code they write is also tainted, having advertantly or inadvertantly used ideas found in unix code. When reverse engineering the IBM bios compaq used two sepearate teams to insure no one who saw the ibm bios code wrote any code. Apparently you weren't so careful, and it may wreck your case.
I didn't know they were on writing terms.
Vote for Pedro
Oh, wait. I live in St. George, New York City. Not St. George, Utah.
Nevermind.
> If you watch the trades during trading hours you can see lots of strange behavior and what appears to be obvious trading designed to keep the stock above certain amounts.
> It is especially obvious during the last hour of the day when then stock rises no matter how it had been trading the rest of the day.
I've always noticed similar behaviour in Microsoft's stock.
I also remember noticing that Corel's stock behaved very strangely in the days when Microsoft wanted Corel to stop supporting Linux. It seemed that on days when there was good news for the company, Corel's stock always went down instead of up.
I also remember, in the days when Microsoft was fighting Java, on the day that Oracle made a major announcement for their new Java product, that announcement didn't make it into the headlines. Instead, the big story was about Oracle's stock dropping by a huge amount. Nothing that happened in the market, and nothing that happened to Oracle that day could explain the drop.
And now we are seeing strange behaviour in SCO's stock.
And the common factor in every case is Microsoft.
Microsoft has ignored the law in the past.
Microsoft has committed fraud in the past.
So why would we expect any stock in which Microsoft has an interest to behave rationally?
"The Linux(R) Kernel Personality (LKP( for UnixWare 7.1.3 provides Linux environment hosted on the UnixWare kernel. This environment does not contain a Linux kernel ..."
Well, since this commercial product does not contain a Linux(TM) kernel, where does SCO get off using the registered trademark Linux(TM) as part of its name?
yeah, if only he had given his name. if only you knew who to address.
and what difference would that make?
NOTHING!
you've been watching too many john wayne westerns.
moron.
I weary of the non-SCO side of this battle treating SCO like a bunch of idiots. Shit or get off the pot, FSF/GNU/etc., I'm sure the SCO camp is well aware of copyright laws and they probably don't need to be reminded. I've heard that they even have lawyers! It seems obvious to me that the fight is going to be on terms of interpretation rather than one side not knowing that there are 800 laws across the earth that prohibit what they're doing.
IBM has their own problems, so if Linux stakeholders CAN do something about it, then do it. Quit engaging in these mental masturbation and Dr. Phil melodramatics. I'm sure we can get a PayPal jar sufficiently filled just by the people who are sick of watching the minutiae played out on the pages of Slashdot, the most ineffectual political machine evar.
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
But first they have to sign a NDA to read it!
My rights don't need management.
Please eat a dick. Thank you.
Brought to you by the open letters: S, T, F, and U.
The "old proprietary" software model? Umm, I agree with a lot of what they say, but who the hell do they think they're kidding?
If you develop successfull software yourself, the "old proprietary" model is the best way to make money from it.
Don't be ridiculous. Free software is all fine, but don't pretend it's the wave of the future - it isn't.
Damn, just like the Palestinians.
Take united airlines for example. They filed for bankruptcy and the stock was reduced to penny status (UALAQ). The stock really has no value as UAL has announced that it is going to fold the stock and have a new public offering. At one point a couple of months ago it was down to $0.43/share. Now it is $1.02/share. It has since doubled and there is still no 'real' value in those stocks! At least the SCO case has had value. I think some of the investor optimism comes from past successes by the management team (outside of SCO) and the parent.
-Sean
Name a single pro article. There has not been a one.
Becuase no one has WRITTEN one! The best that has come out from sources other than SCO are articles along the lines of "what if they are right?"
The only "pro-SCO" stuff written so far has been SCO press releases.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Oh so your a viking then huh? Great name YOU have.
If anyone cares, there is a very odd and interesting "History of Unix", whereas Unix is treated like a cult (makes sense). Actually quite funny.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
A great letter. However, if these messages are to percolate widely throughout the media, the general public, and (perhaps most importantly of all) the investment community, somebody in a position of authority/respect needs to come along and make these points using far fewer words. It's a simple fact of life that most of the people we want to reach with this message are not going to invest the time to read a dissertation of this length. Many will be automatically prejudiced against it, for fear that it will turn out to be an open source zealot's rant.
The well-reasoned thinking, the comprehensive argument, the lack of smug sarcasm all work in this letter's favor. But I just can't see your average C-level executive taking the time to read it.
Breakfast served all day!
It's easier to end discussing at -1 if you don't post with your name, genius.
So isn't that amusing (but interesting) that the author of that comment didn't use it.
BTW, it is GrokLaw, not Greplaw. -1 Troll.
tl;dr
You have all been scammed big time. Still, the humor of it is a lot of fun and I admire what the person did in impersonating Mr. Yarro. And the story submitted was a great one, for Groklaw is covering the SCO story in a way that is unique and very much needed. I'm just shocked that this prankster didn't get called on his prank.
special people chosen by god
I think people are confused by this as well. Special people chosen by god doesn't mean better then everyone else. Special people chosen by god are special people chosen by god to SUFFER. Oy!
Thank you for writing a coherent, polite and clear response to SCO. I believe that your methods will get us faster and better results than the usual loose cannons.
-- $G
While all this bluster is entertaining to read about, several things will occur. The first is that ibm is "the tip of the spear". The contract dispute will go to trial and will last many years, unless ibm buys sco including inflated stock price. Whatever "evidence" sco has will be made public. Given what has already been shown, (they must be saving the best for the trial) and given the long convoluted history of unix source code only code contributed by ibm will need to be compared to sco code. As far as ibm's contract obligations go. So it comes down to whether such code is "derived" enough to give copyright jurisdiction to sco. If Redhat can force discovery of such "alleged" code the whole process may only take a few years instead of several years. We are also about to see the GPL get dragged into court. This will be the first serious test of the GPL and like bad tasting medicine it is hard to swallow but it makes us healthy. It's worth asking why m$ hasn't already bought the sco farm. Like a banker that holds the mortgage on the farm it will be so much cheaper to reposes when it goes belly up.
Now ... was this arranged by one of those wish-granting for terminallly ill persons foundations, or did you just sign the usual contract in blood. Old Scratch is ready to collect the usual payment.
LinuxWorld is now carrying the letter too
embark on an anti-GPL, andit-Linux fud campaing.
You can already see the extend of the fud. As
Linux and the GPL become more popular, Microsoft
and Sun will have more reasons to fight more.
I am afraid, the upcoming demise of SCO has
little affect on the future.
It will only be over when Linux and the GPL become
illegal through legislation. I don't wish that it be over.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
There have been a few, but the Slashbots here just claim them as biased and dismiss them. None have ever been posted as a headline. Only linked to by intelligent, unbiased posters.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Totally agree. Too many words, even when correct, lose their power to convince.
You praise this letter's "lack of smug sarcasm"; that may be true, compared to the common exchanges by these combatants, but from the perspective of a CIO/CTO desk the letter is still pretty smarmy and superior.
It's like '80's Apple users talking about the PC world: "We know we're right and everybody else does too, but we'll do you a favor and take you through this argument once more...because you're such a dope." Success will come when the open source position is seen as mainstream, rather than the nerdy fringe. (Which is tough, as long as 80% of the market is focused on the latest Windows bug.)
-- We all have enough strength to endure the misfortunes of other people. La Rochefoucauld
I applaud the authors of this email. I agree with their message, and hope that this letter makes a difference. However, I truly wish that they had had an english teacher in the list of professionals mentioned in the third paragraph. *sigh*
You should know that this person is taking highly rated comments from the Yahoo finance message board and posting them on slashdot without proper attributions. I wrote the text in the above comment on the Yahoo finance message board as jqtechworker. You can see the original post here. I do not mind that my words have been copied. But fucking christ, at least reference the link and author.
Here is the original post.
IANAL, and unfortunately it would take someone who *has* some clout on the Linux side of things, but it seems to me that some 3rd party could *sue* SCO claiming they believe that SCO has lifted code off of Linux, and could claim they need full disclosure of the SCO source code (with an appropriate NDA, I'm sure) and resolve this whole issue.
I no longer feel the need to send my letter which was prehaps less effective....
Dear Darl
Bite me.
Eric Damron
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
check out MatrixWiki Matrix Wiki !
OK. Name one.
karma. HTH.
*sniggers wildly*
Police State UK - news and