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.
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!
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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?
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.
"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."
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.
One closed region: a b d e g o p q
Ah, but "g" is ambiguous; in courier, it's one closed, but in Times, it's two closed regions.
(Is there a point to this?)
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
*sigh* why does this always get modded up?
It was resolved by being disproved. The complaint was based on the mistaken view that the only way to get those structures was from Soren when in fact the author of those headders had gotten the documentation from the manufacturer.
The similarities are easilly explained by the fact that the structures use standard variable names and are in a layout dictated by the hardware.
In short: there was no coppying.
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
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.
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.
Thanks for the ROTFLOL thing.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
How about here?
Note the file called rpm-4.1.tar.gz.
Go to the rpm.org website where, on the front page, there's a link to the ftp site. At the ftp site, you can find all of the current source and binaries in both rpm and .tar.gz formats.
This took me all of 2 minutes to locate.
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!
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.
RPM is just a CPIO archive with a bunch of metadata pasted on the front. All you have to do is strip off that metadata and feed the remainer to any decent implementation of CPIO. This is straightforward, and there's several utilities to do it, including this one written in perl.
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!
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
Do you remember that the (GPL'd) libreadline
library was released (I think under BSD) by
Tom Cr. a few years ago and also mentioned on
slashdot. And of course, all the BSD idiots
of slashdot applauded the act that a piece of
code was converted to BSD despite the wishes
of the libreadline authors.
(The name of Tom Cr. is intentionaly left
uncompleted. Very many of you already know
his name.)
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
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.