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."
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.
And here I am getting all my news from scodot...
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!
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!
According to the Merriam-Webster OnLine Dictionary we discover:
dynamic : 2 a : marked by usually continuous and productive activity or change (a dynamic city)
operating: 4 : to follow a course of conduct that is often irregular (crooked gamblers operating in the club)
company : 2 a : a group of persons or things (a company of horsemen)
So, they are a bunch of crooks that continually attack others. That wasn't so hard now, was it?
The dogcow says "Moof!"
1. Operate company dynamically
2. ???
3. Profit!
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.
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.
"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."
Your company's website does almost nothing to explain what it is your company does.
It plays games with stock and venture capital in order to cash in on scams like the current SCOX stock bubble. This does perform the economically useful activity of taking money out of the hands of incompetent people, but unfortunately it just puts the money into the hands of unethical people instead.
Please mod parent down to -1 to raise the level of the discussion at that score. Thanks!
I sent them some information about my wicked screensaver.
What the hell does that mean?
It means that it's more unpredictable than a "static operating company."
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Your company's website does almost nothing to explain what it is your company does.
So you think our website should explain what we do? And have the SEC shutting us down? I don't think so.
The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
I didn't know they were on writing terms.
Vote for Pedro
But first they have to sign a NDA to read it!
My rights don't need management.
Or for those who like to think in code:
#include "company.h"
Company * cPtr = new Company; // dynamic operating company
Company Canopy; // static operating company