McBride Interview from Utah SCO Protest
Andrew McNabb writes "Some of you may remember the protest we had in June in front of the SCO offices in Lindon, UT. Afterwards we had an interview with Darl McBride, where he said some very interesting things. More on the scoop, including a transcript and ogg of the discussion is available at Groklaw."
Isn't it funny that some time ago, Linux wasn't "good enough" for the enterprise, but nowadays, Linux is "evil" because it is too good and marginalizes the operating system as a revenue provider? I recall that a while ago, some f*wits at the SCO get-together complained that creating a compiler isn't profitable anymore, because of gcc.
Anyway, it seems like we are winning.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Is a pretty smooth talker. He managed to almost always sound like he was saying something, even though he wasn't on quite a few occasions. Also, he only repeated himself about ten or twelve times.
And that's not an insult, not by a long-shot. It's damn hard not to be repetitive in a situation like that, and he held out pretty good.
Also, if I recall correctly, he distictively said SCO wasn't going after end users and Linux developers, just after IBM:
Of course, it's a little vague, but it's something.
He managed to dodge all the questions about if running a specific configuration was in any way a violation (On a single proc? On a handheld?). Also, he seemed to imply that Debian was clean.
Also, the protestors were very level-headed, which was good. They had good questions and pushed hard without being rude.
They asked McBride (more than once) why it wasn't just OK for the linux guys to remove the infringing code. He didn't answer the question at all, and instead danced around it. In fact, I can hardly find any question where he did answer in a straight-forward manner.
It would be cool if he just answered "Greed." to every question, because that's what we're all thinking anyway.
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
Sure, Boies is getting paid, but that's hardly a win. Lawyers like to take cases that do more than just pay the bills. They like to win cases, for a variety of reasons. The short of is is that lawyers do not always win - but they usually manage to get paid, which can sometimes be a decent enough consolation prize to endure the loss.
As for Microsoft, well sure they like the situation and were happy to pay licensing fees, knowing that it would help fuel SCO's fire. No conspiracy here, just taking advantage of the situation at hand. Hell, Sun did exactly the same thing, for exactly the same reasons. I don't think these two companies put Canopy up to anything - Canopy was already brewing this baby when the licensing fees came in.
Let me paraphrase one section of this exchange:
"So, show us where Linux is in violation."
"No, we can't do that, because then we'd be revealing protected code, and then there would be a problem."
"So there's not a problem?"
"No, there is a problem, which is that there's SCO protected code in Linux."
"So if there's a problem, just tell us which code, and we can fix it."
"No, I can't do that, it would cause a problem."
This sounds like one of those loops that those AIs get into when talking to each other...
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?