Slashdot Mirror
Forbes Examines SCO Subpoenas
z4ce writes "It seems that Daniel Lyons of Forbes just wrote yet another article on the IBM vs. SCO law suit. Now, Daniel seems to seeing SCO for the liars they are. One of the choice quotes include, "What's the point of hassling people who make chips and set-top boxes? Don't ask SCO's top execs. They don't know anything about this stuff, remember?""
They clearly stole the idea of chips from SCO! Unix ran on chips before Linux!
Man, this SCO crap is getting as bad as when Napster first went under attack. How about we just hear about it once a day until either its settled, one of the parties backs out, or the trial starts.
Enough speculation, lets quit getting our panties in a bunch until the real meat of the lawsuit comes to life.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Excellent - it seems I'm reading more and more critical-of-SCO stuff these days. Just desserts, and all that
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Stallman's GNU/Linux operating system is not the target of SCO's suit. Linux, the program SCO is targeting, is not an operating system, but only the kernel of the GNU/Linux operating system, which could run using a different kernel.
It's refreshing to see mainstream media getting it right.
Trolling is a art,
SCO's making a lot of noise, and a lot of nuisance. They know they have no case, and it seems their tactics have gotten more and more outrageous as time has progressed. Why? If they announce something even more ridiculous, people (stock analysts, investors) don't have time to analyze the original case.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Stallman says the Boston-based Free Software Foundation, which he founded in 1985, has nothing to do with SCO's lawsuit. "SCO is suing IBM for violating a contract. We don't even know what the contract said. In terms of the resolution of that lawsuit, the Free Software Foundation is entirely uninvolved," he says.
... how come Caldera, a former distributor, can't?
Stallman's GNU/Linux operating system is not the target of SCO's suit. Linux, the program SCO is targeting, is not an operating system, but only the kernel of the GNU/Linux operating system, which could run using a different kernel.
This sums it up. SCO is suing IBM for breach of contract, nothing more, nothing less. What dows Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman et al have to do with this contract? did they sign it?
Even that Forbes reporter could (kind of) tell the difference between GNU/Linux the OS and Linux the kernel
Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
has been so low lately, i havent had a good laugh in weeks.
whats wrong daryl? did that iraqi defense minister stop feeding you tips?
turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
Jeese I'm tired of hearing about SCO.
I wish Moore's law applied to the speed of lawsuits as well.
Pretty Pictures!
Stallman says the Boston-based Free Software Foundation, which he founded in 1985, has nothing to do with SCO's lawsuit. "SCO is suing IBM for violating a contract. We don't even know what the contract said. In terms of the resolution of that lawsuit, the Free Software Foundation is entirely uninvolved," he says.
Holy shit! RMS talked to a member of the press and DIDN'T come off looking like a smug, reality-disconnected jackass!
Truly amazing.
Is the exact wording of the subpoena available anywhere?
I'm not really familiar with US subpoenas, so I'm not sure if it would actually be helpful or not.
No reaction to the article. It seems to be void of actual content. But yeah, Daniel Lyons seems to be clued in now.
Okay, when the whole SCO thing started...what...this past June or so, I thought it was pretty funny. I mean, just who are they kidding? Do they actually expect anybody to pay them...anything? I still wonder if anyone actually has. They CLAIM people have, but won't say whom.
I digress.
The point is...it's getting old. Everyone with half a brain has been screaming that not only does the Emperor have no clothes, but that he never did, never will, and likely has no clue what clothes are for months now. When will SCO finally implode, and in one spectacularly unnoteworthy press release cease to exist?
Earth to SCO: seriously, enough already.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
You actually mean Daniel "FSF-are-hitmen and Linux-users-are-religious-fanatics" Lyons ?
Quite a change in tone ! Oh, well, maybe he's grown as tired of the SCO-IBM case as I am...
Maybe we deserve this world ?
It would seem to an outside observer that SCO is getting desperate and seeking discovery from anyone they can get their hands on(this is alluded to in the article). Im not sure thats how they are thinking. SCOs logic trail seems to follow two basic paths:
1. We know there is UNIX code in linux, and we need to bring in as many people as possible to show how fragmented and uncontrolled Linux Development is. This will make the court favor us, as we can show a lack of true orginization on the defendants part (the defendant being Linux, not the legal defendant e.g. IBM).
2. We have gone on record disclosing that our revenue model is largely based around SCOSource, which is largely based around people paying us for our IP. Ergo, we have to show people that we can win(otherwise we have no IP to charge people for), and to do this we must undermine Linux's Credibility.
The practical upshot is that the 'buckshot' discovery model is aimed partially at garnering as much information possible (relevant or not) and partially to illustrate to the court that there is no one authoritative 'source' to the problem (thereby undermining the general credibility of linux with the court, making the court more inclined to see it as a dangerous conglomeration of not-necessarily-IP-abiding individuals.)
I know this is supposition, but like many of the other theories about why SCO is doing what they are doing it fits well in the facts.
This thought occurred to me:
SCO goes after Linux as a marketing/gain money tool.
They get hated.
Opposing SCO becomes popular.
SCO has just handed people a new marketing tool - oppose/stand up to SCO, get attention, customers, etc.
Though in reflection, their egregeous approach to an unsubstantiated claim was bound to provoke a backlash. And it was bound to be something that people would take advantage of.
Did SCO even see this? My guess, no. They're up their in their own little world.
Is this really even news anymore? /. must generate more SCO publicity than any other entity out there right now, which is only good for SCO.
/. create a sco.slashdot.org and post all the SCO crap there, so all of us who know they are full of crap and have become completely desensitized to the issue can stop beating the long dead horse. Those who enjoy beating a rotting carcass can continue to do so.
How about
finally, something to push the stock back into reality... 0.70/share (or less)
If reality mattered, SCO would have a negative stock quote. After all they said that they would pay you if you migrate to a non-SCO operating system.
IMHO this is a delaying tactic. IBM is asking SCO to put up or shutup. Now SCO can say "wait until our latest round of discovery; then we'll show you." It's consistent with the theory that SCO doesn't want this thing in court.
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
"Stallman is another obvious candidate for SCO's legal hit men. Not only did he write much of the code that makes up the GNU/Linux operating system, but in 1989 he created the GNU General Public License under which Linux and many other free software programs are distributed. SCO has challenged the validity of the GPL. "
um... ok... whatever...
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
It seems that SCO is in reality just a service to provide news stories. A really nice written story-generator though, since everybody keeps talking about them. Maybe they have a excellent business consultants...
greetings,
Al
His previous article was called the Linux Hitmen and painted the EFF in a really ugly light almost like they were the extortionists not SCO. So its quite a aturn around. or maybe he just hates everyone.
The article is written in a very casual almost unbussiness-like tone of voice--odd for forbes. I bet it does not make it into the dead-tree edition of forbes read by real bussiness types, so it wont have much impact
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
is inversly proportional to the seepd of lawsuits.
Ought to be good for some laughs. Reporters who get pissed off by disinformation tend not to be kind
The clearly stole the idea of unix from chips. Chips weren't running linux before SCO!
Blogzine
Fortress of Insanity TM
clifgriffin > blog
Mr Lyons is now sounding like a reporting instead of a puppet (or perhaps a SCO investor).
The best cut is:
Oddly enough, on Nov. 11, SCO Executive Vice President Christopher Sontag complained to Forbes about IBM's decision to send subpoenas to investors and analysts who supported SCO. Sontag called the move "an attempt to bully and intimidate" and said IBM was engaged in "legal gamesmanship."
So why didn't Sontag mention that, uh, SCO itself was about to target Torvalds and Stallman with subpoenas? SCO's spokesman says Sontag and Darl McBride, SCO's chief executive, did not know that SCO's lawyers were planning the move.
The CEO and Vice-President did not know what their lawyers were up to!? Well I guess it is a clue to who is running the show.
Interesting that after having been in contact with RMS, the reporter sees to be 'getting it' and even seems to be understanding the importance of freedom (not just low cost) in 'free software'. Way to go.
+1 Insightful, someone. Spot on. This is exactly what SCO has been getting investments for.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
"I am concerned about long-term entrenched confusions such as referring to a version of our GNU OS as 'Linux' and thinking that our work on free software was motivated by the ideas associated with 'open source.' These confusions lead users away from the basic issue: their freedom. By comparison, the events involving SCO are transitory and almost trivial," Stallman says.
I think RMS is making an excellent point here. Though the Linux kernel itself is not trivial, these issues surrounding SCO will in the long run become trivial. I have no doubt that the GPL and therefore software freedom will be upheld in court, even if worse comes to worst with the Linux kernel (however unlikely that is). Yes, SCO is crazy/dangerous, but in the long run they can't really hurt free and open source software.
i don't think sco knows what it wants. on the one hand they work on a linux personality kit for their 'unix' and they use many tools under the gnu license with their products, then they go after the free software community and say that the gpl is evil and bad for the world ... huh?
someone should (ibm, etc) put sco in their place
"but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
we need to bring in as many people as possible to show how fragmented and uncontrolled Linux Development is .. and to that end, we are going to subpoena people who have nothing to do with Linux kernel development.
Of course, if you look at it crosseyed enough, it starts to make a little sense.. by bringing to the stand people who have nothing to do with it, you make them seem even more fragmented and uncontrolled...
"Mr Stallman, let's talk about the Linux kernel code you contributed.."
"I've never made any contributions to the Linux kernel."
"Ahh - so then let's talk about the code that you didn't contribute, then."
"What?!?!"
"Your Honor, see how fragmented and uncontrolled they are!"
If you'll kindly notice, everything SCO has been posted under the "Caldera" icon. So here's how to turn that off, for those that don't want to see any SCO stories anymore.
You're done! Now shut the hell up.
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
indeed, did you have a point or is your logic inspired by SCO's manner of thought?
...SCO is now suing Forbes.
Lets try and find who their top LINUX/SCO IP license customers are and put some pressure on them by emailing them not to pay any licensing fees. Another idea would be to warn them of boycotts of their product.
I know of two companies that have paid the license fee- Sun microsystems and Microsoft.
There are probably some other fortune 500 companies.
If you know of any post them here. Lets form some citizen action group against SCO bullying while IBM and the other Linux operating system companies try the legal route.
"Your Honor, see how fragmented and uncontrolled they are!"
What more evidence do we need that $CO is going to employ the Chewbacca Defense:
"RMS did not contribute to Linux. This does not make sense. Chewbacca lives on Endor. That does not make sense. Therefore, you must acquit!"
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
More or less dead on. The true target here was never IBM, the target was Linux, and the only way to start targeting Linux as a whole is to target the kernel. Then you move on from there to the GPL (which they've already done). Id be willing to bet most of the discovery targeted at stallman and other G/L people will deal with undermining the GPL, not the kernel itself. This, if successful serves to blow linux as a whole out of the water.
I'm not sure David gets it, yet.
Groklaw.net (IBM's Subpoenas to Analysts and Investors: Why? Why? Why?) points out that IBM's going after the network of analyists and investors, possibly because this whole SCO/Linux thing looks strikingly similar to a pump and dump scheme the Feds have already found.
Does Lyons need to appear balanced to avoid getting entangled with IBM Subpoenas?
Notice that this article spends more time than necessary on the differences between Free and Open software. If I was a SCO lawyer with MS interests at heart, I play RMS to really divide the community. It won't work, but will generate useful FUD.
... that SCO will stick a link to _this_ Forbes article on the front page of their website?
Drill baby drill - on Mars
And I thought that the only major thing that Richard wrote by himself was some dorky editor.
SEC execs and the concerned Investor may not read /. but, they are more than likely to read Forbes on the pot.
Good to see that the FUD has reached levels intollerable even to the PHB perspective.
I consider this and the (hopefully) subsequent articles to be the harbinger of a lynch mob and land shark feeding frenzy as soon as IBM bitch-slaps SCO et al in court.
Press Relaese
Help fight continental drift.
"I am concerned about long-term entrenched confusions such as referring to a version of our GNU OS as 'Linux' and thinking that our work on free software was motivated by the ideas associated with 'open source.' These confusions lead users away from the basic issue: their freedom. By comparison, the events involving SCO are transitory and almost trivial," Stallman says.
:)
Way to get your priorities straight, Richard -- putting your pet semantics above the users' ability to use your software legally. For the love of god, someone call in ESR!
Cheers,
IT
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
Linux is taking marketshare from all the Unix Os. This could be why even Sun has bought a Sco/linux ip license. These companies are very afraid of Linux. Look at what Linux has done to SUN. It has destroyed them and it will put Sco out of business to because of the superiority of Linux. This is SCO's last hope. Their other business ,Caldera OS was a failure.
Quote from the article: "Stallman's GNU/Linux operating system is not the target of SCO's suit. Linux, the program SCO is targeting, is not an operating system, but only the kernel of the GNU/Linux operating system, which could run using a different kernel".
Sounds like Daniel Lyons sold his SCO stock yesterday...
No, that's the EXACT wording as what I submitted. Troll and Offtopic on my own submission? Look at the blurb z4ce writes...
>Not only did he write much of the code that makes up the GNU/Linux operating system...
I've often wondered about this... Obviously Linux woudn't be much use without GCC or the GNU C Library, but specifically which parts of "GNU/Linux" did RMS personally write? I know he wrote Emacs (and probably Info), but I don't use either of those. Really, which programs on a typical linux system, besides Emacs, were written by RMS?
Interesting that they got a subpoena. They are funded by Paul Allen.
Your Honor, have you ever noticed how much this man looks like Chewbacca.
but in the unlikely event that this FUD succeeds can't everyone move over onto BSD or Darwin or some other kernel, or am I missing something. I realise that this is hardly a trivial matter but nonetheless its hardly going to stop Free/Open Software developing, only delay it's inevitable acceptance as part of the mainstream of computing.
linus is taking too much marketshare from the unix operating systems and not as much from windows.
I wonder if they haven't subpoena'd Stallman so they can ask him questions about the spirit of the GPL, and the philosphy underlying it, then tell the court that it's obviously a conspiracy by godless hairy commies to destroy American Capitalism(tm) and hope that sways the jury to their advantage.
There was a reasonably interesting discussion at Groklaw as to whether invalidating the GPL might in some way lead to a lot of code being declared legally to be in the Public Domain, and thus exploitable. Cynical but it could work with a jury drawn from the right sort of community.
Think for just a minute about how SCO claims IBM breached the contract. Remember, they took SCO's code and put it into Linux? Well, whether they actually did or not, or whether the code in question really "belongs" to SCO (under "derived work") is in debate. But Linus, as the person in charge of changes to the kernel, would be in a unique position to comment on whether IBM actually did this.
As for calling Stallman, it's clearly to deal with the counter-claims re: the GPL, which IBM brought to the table. Certainly Stallman is worth questioning if the GPL is being challenged or used as a point of attack.
-Dan
it's GNU/Linux, not Linux damn it. Linux is just the kernel.
IBM shits on Darl's birthday cake.
Dear SCO & Friends,
I understand what you're going through. As an individual, I went through this back in 2001, when the market tanked and I lost my cushy dot-com gig. A lot of companies went through what you're going through, but most of them had the common decency to go quietly and with dignity, rather than hiring lawyers and trying to take a Scorched Earth approach in a last valiant effort to save themselves. Here's a hint: you're not the Soviet Army and Utah isn't Stalingrad.
Let's face it -- your goose is cooked. In an attempt to fill your coffers, you have succeeded in the most perfect execution of Operation: Footbullet since the dying gasps of the dot-coms in 2000-2001. Even if you win, you lose -- you have alienated the one group that you needed to hold on to any sort of market share: the geeks. If, by some stroke of magical luck, bought judge, planetary alignment, or guiding hand of Microsoft, you manage to actually pull this off and have the GPL declared null-and-void and you and your puppeteer, Bill Gates (no doubt, elbow deep in your asses, playing ventriloquist), manage to clean house registering patents and copyrights on works you didn't create, you will have only succeeded in enraging those who are responsible for creating those works. Those creators are people who have a say in what gets purchased at their offices, and I'd be willing to bet that it wouldn't be SCO or M$ (should their complicity in this fiasco be shown to be true and not just educated guesswork).
That said, I'd encourage you to call off the attack dogs. We'll all have a good laugh at your "clever ruse" and share a beer together. Twenty years from now, SCO will be long-gone and irrelevant. God willing, M$ will be gone then, too. And you'll wonder to yourself: what the fuck was I thinking back then?
Think it over. There's more of us than there are of you, ultimately, we, the consumers, control the future of your business. Do you really want to taunt that 800-lb. gorilla? Do you?
blog |
It's nice to see he can learn, though... No, it is bad for him. As Orwell said, Ignorance is strength! Now he will never be abel again to write such anti-linux masterpieces. In an orwellian story, he would be taken out to the back yard and shot. In our world, he may be transferd to the sport reporters or simply be fired.
I think the reason things are turning round is that this whole SCO debacle has let Linux/OSS detractors to come out of the woodwork and a "Linux bashing bandwagon" began in the media. What has changed is that now things have got serious with Subpoenas they realize their posturing has consequences (other than inflating SCOs' share price) and hence the abrupt U-turns.
Quite possibly, Novell will not be amused. The next logical move by SCO would be to terminate Novell's unix licence. Oh wait...
....Where the losers get beheaded, perhaps I would be more interested in reading about it.
The target is money. Plain and simple. SCO will do whatever it can to make money with this sharpened scheme. Originally, the idea was to get bought out by IBM hence the agreement with Boies' law firm granting them ownership in the event of sale. Then the idea was to force IBM to idemnify its customers so it could get a settlement from IBM's insurance company. Now the idea is to avoid actually complying with disclosure and revealing that they don't actually know what code has supposedly been misappropriated. To stall they are sending subpoenas to everyone remotely connected to Linux so they can supply large amounts of useless information to IBM and claim to the court that they are complying with disclosure requests. IANAL but I know one from TV and his name is Matlock.
Frylock: That's not a toy!
Master Shake: You say that about everything you own. You should own toys. They're fun.
The only problem I see with this is that Torvalds and Stallman, regardless of what people think of them as personalities, are extremely intelligent individuals, not to mention highly methodical. These types rarely "put their foot in it" so to speak. SCO's lawyers, regardless of how intelligent they think they are, are dealing with 2 people that are way above their league in terms of "knowing what they're talking about".
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
LinuxWorld today notes that one of its editors, Brian E. Ferguson, features prominently in the Forbes story. Ferguson authored the savvy analytical article SCO's IP Gamble in the current issue, which, as Forbes notes, concludes that "SCO's case a long shot."
The SCO Group Closes $50 Million Equity Financing
/PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The SCO(R) Group (SCO) (Nasdaq: SCOX - News), the owner of the UNIX operating system, today announced it has received a $50 million private investment led by BayStar Capital, an investment fund that is a leader in providing negotiated private equity placements in publicly traded companies. The investment in SCO was structured as a private placement of non-voting Series A Convertible Preferred Shares, convertible into common equity at a fixed conversion price of $16.93 per share, which was the average closing bid price for the Company's common stock for the five previous trading days prior to the date of closing. Upon conversion, the investors will own an aggregate of approximately 2,953,000 shares of SCO common stock representing 17.5% of the company's outstanding shares.
Thursday October 16, 5:16 pm ET
$50 Million Private Investment Transaction Led by BayStar Capital Provides SCO With Funding for Future Software Development, SCOx Web Services Partnerships And Acquisitions, Future Licensing Opportunities and the Protection of the Company's Intellectual Property Assets
LINDON, Utah, Oct. 16
(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/19990421/SCOLO GO )
The net proceeds from the private placement, combined with the Company's cash balance reported for its third quarter ended July 31, 2003, will provide the Company with a cash position of approximately $61.0 million. The increase in cash will significantly enhance the overall financial strength of SCO while providing substantial additional funding for business objectives including future UNIX and SCOx Web Services software development, new strategic partnerships, and protection of the Company's UNIX intellectual property and related programs.
"The momentum in the marketplace continues to shift in SCO's direction," said Darl McBride, president and CEO, The SCO Group. "Over recent months, we have made significant strides forward in our on-going effort to protect and enforce the Company's intellectual property rights through SCOsource. During the same period, we have been steadily strengthening our core operating business, and in the coming weeks, we look forward to providing the industry and Wall Street with additional details on our plans and initiatives. Now, with a $50 million investment from BayStar, we believe we have secured the capital necessary to fund all aspects of the long term growth of this Company."
"BayStar Capital looks to invest in growth-oriented firms with strong management, substantial market opportunity and solid, comprehensive business plans, and we believe that all of those fundamentals are in place for SCO to succeed," said Lawrence Goldfarb, General Partner, BayStar Capital. "SCO owns the most predominant UNIX software assets in the I.T. industry, has a 20 year history of providing trusted software solutions to end users around the globe, and an aggressive and seasoned management team focused on generating profitable growth."
SCO will hold a teleconference to address this investment on Friday, October 17 at 12:00 p.m. Eastern time. Participants should dial in 10 minutes prior to the start of the call and dial toll-free 1-800-811-8824 and use the confirmation code 690025. International callers should use the toll number +1-913-981-4903.
The securities sold in this private placement have not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933 and may not be offered or sold in the United State in the absence of an effective registration statement or exemption from registration requirements. The Company has agreed to file a resale registration statement on Form S-3 within 30 days after the closing of the transaction for the purposes of registering the shares of common stock underlying the shares of Series A preferred stock acquired by BayStar.
Forward Looking Statements
This press release contains forward looking statements related to our business plans and objectives and spec
I have no doubt that the GPL and therefore software freedom will be upheld in court, even if worse comes to worst with the Linux kernel (however unlikely that is). Yes, SCO is crazy/dangerous, but in the long run they can't really hurt free and open source software.
I think it's fair to say that losing Linux would hut free software for a long time. You may have noticed that every time someone has announced a new free operating system -- or, for that matter, an older one like the BSDs -- there is a chorus of "Who needs it? We have Linux!" and it usually dies for lack of both users and developers. What we have today is a bad case of too many eggs in one basket.
Honestly, the free and open software community often behaves en masse like "non-conformist" teenagers who buck the norm only to rigidly adhere to the one true alternative. Of course, that may not be wholly coincidental.
There are dozens and dozens of free operating systems out there ranging from pre-alpha plans to complete, mature systems. Do yourself a favor and check them out until you are sure you can name ten of them off the top of your head. Linux isn't the silver bullet for all applications any more than Windows or MacOS or Solaris are.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
I think SCO has very little to do with the day to day activity in this lawsuit. They aren't smart enough. The lawyers are running the show.
Remember, SCO was hurting for cash? They consulted a lawyer and went after the biggest target with the most cash, IBM.
I'll guess that SCO's law team is going to show specific pieces of code to Linus and ask, "How did this code get there?" They're going to look for an answer that points to IBM. If Linus says he doesn't know, then they'll ask who would know? They'll ask for the documents that show who wrote pieces of code, and when. They'll also ask questions about Linus' intentions when creating Linux.
Then, SCO's lawyers will subpoena other code writers that worked on the kernel. They'll keep digging until one of them points the finger at IBM.
They will use RMS to set the stage for damages. They'll ask him how important the kernel is to the entire package. He'll say that no OS will run without a kernel, which is the obvious answer. That sets the stage for damages, as long as they can point fingers at IBM.
SCO's legal team will increasingly release questionable PR. They will spin everything. They will put out information that is tough to refute. Vague statements. When the trial starts, they'll hammer away at specific pieces of code. Linus or RMS will be asked how important various pieces of code are to the whole kernel. If IBM refutes the blame by pointing to other references (in the public domain) to those same pieces of code, then SCO will add those sources to their lawsuit.
Also, SCO will be trying for a non-technical jury in a liberal court. They'll look for poor people, or retired people living on a pension. The SCO legal team will try to play the little struggling company against the big, evil IBM.
That's assuming that this whole spiel makes it trial.
-- No sig for you!
Don't ask SCO's top execs. They don't know anything about this stuff, remember?
Classic, definitely classic. The mass media is finally catching one. SCO is really going to be backed into a corner now.
Although, I question if that's a good thing. The Chinese general Sun Tzu once said that you should always leave your enemy a way out, so he does not become desperate and do some lasting damage. Like a animal, it must be shown that it has been defeated fairly, and let go to nurse it's wounds.
Slightly OT, I know, but would anyone be interested in building an open-source website mocking SCO? I already regged two good domain names, registrations lasting for two years (Which should coincide with the end of this case). What stuff should I put on it?
SCO's spokesman says Sontag and Darl McBride, SCO's chief executive, did not know that SCO's lawyers were planning the move.
Okay, so fire them!
I know this was quoted in an earlier reply, so don't castrate me, ok?
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
Denying SCO's charges, IBM has filed counterclaims and launched an aggressive attack on SCO, a company based in Lindon, Utah, that had 2002 sales of $64 million.
What? SCO made 2002 sales of $64 million?!? Geez! No wonder they have the money to pay all their lawyers!
Check it out. If you go to forbes.com, this is the story at the top of the page, as opposed to being burried in some tech news link.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
I think they just want to get RMS on the stand and hope he starts ranting about how IP is theft and code wants to be free, and prejudice the judge against the GPL and the free software movement.
I don't think that will work, though. If nothing else, he sticks to his principles, including never touching code that isn't open source. (He claims to have never used Word, for that reason). If asked "what do you think about proprietary source getting covered under the GPL" I think he'll give the right answer.
I would like to see RMS being cross-examined by a clueless lawyer... If there is anybody who is not about to get tripped up by somebody more clever playing on his own internal inconsistencies, it's him.
It's nice to see that a magazine as well-regarded as Forbes takes such pride in objective reporting.
-----http://www.forbes.com/2003/08/04/cz_dl_080
Is this about right? --A taste of reality--.
At the bottom is a list of 345 programs, scripts, libraries, and software suites of an average Linux install (minus KDE-sorry). The inux kernel is one suites in what is primary coined linux. Linux is 'just' layer of software between the user and her/his computer. Also many software suites can be added to or subtracted from the kernel giving speed and functionality to drivers, applications and features.
Most are just as compatible with little to no modification with the Bsd kernels This represents hundreds of thousands of man hours, from a great many men and women from around the world and america is the biggest contributor right now. Most are licenced under the GPL licence which means the orignal authors gave you the right to learn from, to modify alter or change and yes even make money off of their work; if you can. The only condition, release your modifications under the same terms you recieved the code. Many of the authors claim this is a better way to write programs and this just represents the beginning of open source development.
Microsoft hates this simply because their not (and can't be) the main contributor and like any competitor they can't control it. They hate this because the author's desire was for you to use the code at no cost to yourself. They hate this because it dispells much of the 'magic' which the take so much credit for and gain an extraordinary income from.
Many of these programs are used by enterprise every day and the number is growing at an exponent. The microsoft myth of linux is a marketing campaign of misinformation designed to coerce an income from you. If you use a computer or any technological device chances are you've depended on some of these suits at one point or another. Proprietary and closed source software can and does exist within the linux environment including for pay desktops and standalone executable movies (more on that later).
If linux or another supplants Microsofts' operating system, microsoft the software company will go on, but it's monopoly hold on the software industry will come to an end; and with it inappropriate acquistions, the bullying customers and developers alike, and a very long list of wrongs in what this problem child has done within the tech industry as a whole.
Sco does sell a majority of these suits and continues to do so. Sco has and does derived an income from many of these suites. Their challenge to GPL'ed software is a slap in the face to every contributor and sadly a last resort to substantiate claims of legitimacy over these software package (some of which they helped develop and create).
Manpages, Glibc, Binutils, GCC, Coreutils, Zlib, Findutils, Gawk, Ncurses, Vim, Bison, Less, Groff, Sed, Flexa, Gettext, Nettools, InetutilsPerl, TexinfoAutoconf, Automake, Bash, File, Libtool, Bzip, Diffutils, Ed, Kbd, Efsprogs, Grep, Grub, Gzip, Manm, Make, Modutils, Patch, Procinfo, Procps, Psmisc, Shadow, Sysklogd, Sysvinit, Tar, Utillinux, LinuxPAM, Shadow, iptables, GnuPG, Tripwire, Vim, Emacs, nano, JOE, ASH, Tcsh, ZSH, OpenSSLc, pcre, popt, slang, FAM, libxml, libxml, libxslt, readline, GMP, GDBM, GLib, GLib, expat, libesmtp, aspell, ispellepa, Guile, slibd, GWrap, LZO, lcms, libjpegb, libpng, libtiff, libungifb, libmng, Imlib, AAlibrc, SVGAlib, DirectFB, Imlib, bc, repgtk, Compface, GPM, Fcron, hdparm, whichandalternatives, UnZip, Zip, PCIUtilities, pkgconfig, cpio, MC, Python, Perlmodules, librep, JSDK, Ruby, GCC, Tcl, Tk, GCC, NASM, PPP, WvDial, DHCPpl, dhcpcdpl, RPPPPoE, cURL, WvStreams, GNet, libsoup, Linkspre, Lynx, wm, NcFTP,OpenSSHpclient, rsyncclient, CVS, Wget, tcpwrappers, portmapbeta, Inetutils, NCPFS, NTP, Traceroutea, Nmap, Whois, BINDUtilities, Nail, Procmail, Fetchmail, Mutti, Pine, slrn, daemontools, ucspitcp, Postfix, qmail, Sendmail, Exim, Qpopper, Courier, BIND, RunningaCVSserver, DHCPpl, Leafnode, OpenSSHprsync, OpenLDAP, Samba, xinetd, BerkeleyDB, BerkeleyDB, MySQLa, PostgreSQL, Apache, PHP, ProFTPDp, XFree, XFreeComponents, FreeType, Fontconfig
Cynical but it could work with a jury drawn from the right sort of community.
I hate to say it, but Utah is the one of these sorts of communities (I live there). The local
media hasn't exactly been on IBM's side. I think that joe sixpack jury man would see this as the little guy getting stepped on.
this sig is deprecated
It does however work admirably if you shorten the time frame and analyze FUD instead of speed...
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
I think he's more likely to say the kernel is useless without the rest of the OS.
"We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park
SCO's openunix is popular with fast food restraunts. Mcdonalds, KFC, Pizzahut and Tacobell all use it. Remember that next time you are hungry, and drop them a line telling them a line expalining why you will be eating elsewhere.
2 0N WBZCD
http://linuxtoday.com/it_management/20010727005
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
it's up now, please read
Metallica to show up and add their intellectual weight to the argument.
Your mare exactly knows her point when hassling people. And people like that!
Stallman says the Boston-based Free Software Foundation, which he founded in 1985, has nothing to do with SCO's lawsuit. "SCO is suing IBM for violating a contract. We don't even know what the contract said. In terms of the resolution of that lawsuit, the Free Software Foundation is entirely uninvolved," he says.
i don't know if that's a good position or situation for them to take or if that'd help the case. I mean, i guess it's important that SCO loses the case but then if it's a matter of a contract and what the contract says then maybe IBM might be in trouble if it proves that they've violated a contract regardless of what else. Of course, i think the keyword here is *violated* 'cos i think that what people are angry about is that SCO has not been forthcoming about what violation has happened.
Chewvacca Offense? Is this some Slavic variation?
Your courageous and selfless spelling corrections have made me a better person.
Jesus Christ. That link is worse than goatse.cx! The formating, oh god, the formatting! Someone steal this man's period key so he can't use any more ellipses!
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
+1 Insightful. Hilarious AND accurate!
Suppose Linus/RMS and whoever else decide to sue SCO for distributing their software in violation of the GPL.
Could Linux/RMS etc. go after SCO customers who purchased said software if they could show that the customers (MS) knew they were in effect receiving stolen property?
As long as we're playing "Intellectual Property" games, shouldn't knowingly receiving "stolen" property be a crime as well?
Interesting thought. I am not an IP lawyer, that's why I'm masking.
-dameron
Forbes ran the first article posted here about the modus operendi of "The Canopy Group" that runs SCO.
There's nothing that frustrates me more than arguing over semantics than people who define their lives by it!
RMS, RMS, RMS, damn that man to the darkest reaches of hell. Hell as in a place of sufferring, not Hell in the Judeo/Christian sense of the word.
If I have to hear, hear as in read, one more person explain the difference between free beer and liberated software, or one more time how it should appropriately called GNU/Linux, I swear to god someone is going to pay.
Seriously, does this guy go OUT OF HIS WAY to frustrate people? How many times does he want to explain his definition of free software? Wouldn't it be simpler to simply come up with a less ambigious term? But OHHH NOOOOOO, why should he compromise?
I can only imagine the poor people that have to live with this man.
Wife: Richard! I told you to take out the garbage two hours ago!
RMS: Dear, that's not <i>garbage</i>, that's.. Uh.. Let's see.. Used Tissues, some coffee grounds, and my old porno rags. Now if you had simply used the proper terms in the first place..
Wife: Would you just take it out!
RMS: Look, I'm not even going to speak to you further unless you speak to me in the correct syntax.
Wife: GODDAMNIT!!!!
So GREAT. I can't wait to get this guy and a lawyer in the same room. It will be poetic.
When a person GPL's their copyrighted software, it's important to realize that they haven't surrendered any of their rights to copy control that are normally granted by copyright. Specifically, a copyright holder on a GPL'd work insists that a person must agree to the terms of the GPL before being given permission to copy and distribute (outside the context of fair use). Otherwise the default copyright status applies and all they actually have legal permission to do is sit prety and look at it or just use it for their own purposes.
So... how is SCO going to destroy the GPL without destroying copyright itself in the bargain?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Parent is a tubgirl link; please mod this as a troll. Relevant html from whatever he's using to hide the link is this:
<a HREF="http:///www.tubgirl.com" TITLE="http">[sco.slashdot.org]</a http>
There's not even the slightest chance of GPL stuff being declared to be in the public domain by the courts - if the GPL fails (highly unlikely) the code will just revert to normal copyright. Even if the court did try this, it should be simple enough for any one of the thousands of contributers to GNU/Linux to challenge the decision in a US court. And even if that failed, a Utah court cannot invalidate the GPL across the globe. Non-US authors would definitely retain their rights (including the right to sue any non-GPL compliant distributers of their code) and probably in their own country. I don't have any worries at all about this case.
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
If you look at a comparison of SCO and LNUX (ie Va Software) stock on the Nasdaq, you'll see their trends have been very similar. Sure you'd expect the opposite?
((lambda x ((x))) (lambda x ((x))))
For the sake of arguement, let's say the transcript runs 100 pages.
* 1 page, Richard Stallman providing his name, address, current occupation, other identifying material.
* 18 pages of Stallman explaining what "Free Software" means.
* 18 pages of Stallman explaining the GNU Public License.
* 20 pages of Stallman ``correcting" the interlocutor that they are talking about `GNU/linux'"
* 10 pages of Stallman being shown snippets of Linux kernel code & responding, ``I have no idea; I've never seen this code before."
* 33 pages of Stallman repeating, ``I don't know; I've never contributed any code to Torvalds' project."
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
The suits finally are getting it. It won't last long anymore now.
:-)
And frankly, good riddance, the comic relief hasn't been funny since a month or two anymore and the threats can now pre-officially be considered void. On our side "ignore mode" is within reach. On the suits' side "attention" mode is being switched on, on SCO's side the alarm bells should be really ringing now. This is the gloaming
"Thumbs up for the suits" would go a bit to far but I'm glad that over the fence reason is starting to kick in fast now. It was probably due to misunderstanding of many technicalities on their side. But things are sinking in.
Subpoenas aren't always specific and to the point. More often than not they are vague, and open to a great deal of interpretation, which is very dangerous. I'm speaking of a Subpoena Duces Tecum where records must be produce. Then of course there are subpoenas requiring that someone appear in court to provide testimony, or more likely to verify some preexisting evidence.
I hate all sigs, even this one.
This will make the court favor us, as we can show a lack of true orginization on the defendants part
Is there now a federal law against being disorganized?
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
XML Tools for Mac OS X
So why is Linux the obsessive focus, then?
Umm, hello...FK didn't say he wanted to stop hearing about SCO. He said he wainted one story per day until something happens. That won't solve his problems at all.
I guess this should be to the original post... but it seems to me, if he only wants to hear about SCO once a day, he could,
1. Quit hitting refresh every few minutes, or
2. Don't read more than one article about SCO per day!!!
Jumpin' Jiminy, that's why there is a list of articles with (good or bad) summaries. If you don't want to hear about something more than once, look at the article title, figure out if you want to read it, then, either read it, or don't....
For those who describe their systems as 'boxen', do you order multiple 'boxen' of corn flakes also?
a courtroom, sometime in the *hopefully* near future, where the prosectuor representing SCO is liquored up from Hell to Christmas. (Even his lawyer stench can't disguise the foul odor of a lawsuit so frivolous, so he's been getting as legless as possible to face the jury.) He's calling random defendants to the stand, just so he can laugh at the fact that he got anyone to do something just by telling them to.
Prosecutor (speech slurred): Yyurr AAh-ner, I-I woo' like ta call... ummm... Roy Jones, Jr. to th'stand. After that, I wanna bring in my ex-wife, that cheatin bitch... and the POPE! Less'see what he has to say for HIM-se'f, hmm? And get MC Hammer in 'ere, too! Anybuddy, who-who wears pants like that has *ss-sumthin'* ta hide. And Bond! James Bond. He owes me a dollar. And for that matter...*voice trailing off as he slumps to the floor*
Judge: Bailiff, please have this man removed from my courtroom.
Prosecutor: HEEEeeEEYY! You take yer filthy Linux using fingers offa my suit! Th-This is... is my favorite suit! My wife bought this for me... on my birrrthday!! I'll see you in court, you dirty software pirating, coppee-rite infringin' mother....
(sounds of a man being dragged away against his will...)
Sure Bill Gates' hair is fugly, but give his barber some credit! At least he managed to cover the horns on his forehead.
"They don't know anything about this stuff, remember?"
You see, we were learning how to remove prepositional phrases to make sentences easier to understand:
"They don't know anything, remember?"
Torvalds received a subpoena during dinner Wednesday night and says now he'll need to hire a lawyer.
So, Linus, where should I send my PayPal donation towards your legal defense fund? Or will the EFF hire a gaggle of lawyers to cover Linus, RMS and any other contributors of code who have done nothing more than given years of hard work for nothing.
SCO should be drawn and quartered and made an example of so that any other corporations will think twice before indiscriminately suing innocent people.
Ruby on Rails Screencast
Okay, SCO has, as part of this legal battle, challenged the legality and even the constitutionality of the GPL.
RMS says "I am concerned about long-term entrenched confusions such as referring to a version of our GNU OS as 'Linux' and thinking that our work on free software was motivated by the ideas associated with 'open source.' These confusions lead users away from the basic issue: their freedom. By comparison, the events involving SCO are transitory and almost trivial."
So, let me get this straight. SCO is trying to overtun the legal basis of the entire GNU project, the General Public License, but that's "almost trivial" compared to people calling an operating system built on GNU code "Linux".
Uh-huh.
Gimme a break.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
"which could run using a different kernel" ...if we had ever finished (or really started) the Hurd, which has been perpetually at version 0.0.01a-pre-alpha-test1 for the last decade and a half (far longer than Linux has existed, and in fact longer than many Linux users have been alive)
Have you ever tried arguing with a real pig headed christain about something like evolution? It's almost impossible to come up with a good counterarguement because they don't have a good argument to counter. Their misconceptions are so deeply ingrained that any reasonable argument is going to be misunderstood, and you just talk in circles. In the end you both flounder, and no clear picture emerges.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
SCO distributed code under license A. IBM distributed code under license A. SCO is going to have a hard time blaming IBM for distributing code SCO distributed regardless of the license. Calling in RMS is just another outrage from the SCO pirates.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
the author, by publishing the code in a format that is all too easily altered by anyone else, voids all rights he or she may have had
This may be what SCO is after - but it won't work.
Those of us who are old enough to remember might recall that the makers of proprietary software had to fight to get binaries recognized by copyright laws.
Before the late-1970's, the only part of the software that was covered by copyright was the source code, as it was the only part that the software authors 'created'.
There was a very long legal battle for the right to copyright software binaries.
jay-zus. This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original... This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original... This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original... This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original... This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original...
Uhh, the issue is only in doubt if you think SCO has more than a snowballs chance in hell of winning. Because it does not, SCO will go away and this mess will quickly be forgoten, but the confusion SCO is trying to create may remain.
That confusion is worth $20,000,000 to Microsoft and it's a big deal. It's important for the public to know that there are entire operating systems of free software available and that this Linux thing is not just a flash in the pan that can be destroyed by a sinble lawsuit. While the Linux kernel is a large and important project, it's just another replacable component. Indeed the size of the kernel itself makes the SCO suit silly. Any single module that SCO could find infringing could be rewriten in a matter of days.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
i will drop them an email. thanks.
They want only bits of the GPL invalidated (the bits that annoy them) - in essence, they want to force anything GPLed to be completely public domain, with no "viral" distribution requirements. I'm pretty sure they would be unhappy with the results if the court ruled that the entire GPL was invalid & that any works distributed using it reverted to normal copyrights. (Of course, a lot of people would be annoyed in that situation.)
Quoth RMS: "I am concerned about long-term entrenched confusions such as referring to a version of our GNU OS as 'Linux' and thinking that our work on free software was motivated by the ideas associated with 'open source.' These confusions lead users away from the basic issue: their freedom. By comparison, the events involving SCO are transitory and almost trivial,".
Aparently RMS no longer is seeking to have "Linux" refered to as "GNU/Linux" but rather the "GNU OS"...Oh my! How things have changed...
Lets see here...Linux becomes more popular than my project...force others to associate me with the success of another...Linux becomes a target...run away, run away!!!!
Mecworks BLOG
Not really. If you're a good debater, than to a reasonable audience, the fanatic looks like a total moron. The only reason you might not feel like you won is because the _fanatic_ doesn't realize that they look like a total moron, and acts like _you're_ the total moron for not taking everything they say at face value.
In that kind of situation, you've just got to have confidence in your own arguments (after carefully making sure that they're based on good solid logic - don't want to be hypocritical, of course) and be able to ignore the emotional tactics being used by the fanatic. To them, if you look frustrated, that means they won - regardless of how the logic of the argument came out. It drives them nuts if you can be more confident about your argument than they are about theirs.
Read this statement by Ulrich Drepper, glibc maintainer. Among other things, he says:
So the bottom line is that GNU, like Microsoft, takes credit for a lot of people's work, sometimes with their complete approval, sometimes against their will. In reality, most of the energy in free software came from Linux and people's desire to get Unixy things working on Linux.
Oh, and log in so more people see your posts.
Having said that, there are reasons to depose both LT & RMS. LT certainly has knowledge about what was placed into Linux and when, so he is clearly a valid witness. RMS is a little more of a stretch but SCO has raised the issue of the validity of the GPL so RMS would clearly have some interesting views on that subject.
Don Dugger
"Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale
Linux is not an operating system. It's a kernel looking for an operating system.
Without the GNU tools it would be absolutely useless.
It's about time somebody gave the bearded loony some credit. He's a dead set fucking legend. And a nut. But a legend nonethless.
Now wash your hands.
Can't you see... SCO just started a war on GPL, it is obvious that they sent those s*** to kill GPL -- reminding you that it is their main argument against IBMs claim: GPL is not valid.
If someone writes a GPL'd work, and another wants to modify it, they can't distribute that without the new work being subject to the GPL because some or all of the original copyrighted code is still contained in the derived work and is therefore subject to the terms of the distribution license applied to it. If one doesn't want to be subject to the terms of someone else's distribution license, then one should not be using "copy and paste" as a form of code reuse. The first chapter in any decent design patterns text will make it abundantly clear that the "copy and paste" form of code reuse has extremely poor reusability, no abstraction capability, and next to no genericity, which basically means it's a waste of time anyways.
Remember, GPL'd code is still copyrighted and protected by all that normal copyright has to offer. Nobody is actually free to copy GPL'd code or do whatever they wish with it without condition... they must comply with the terms of the license to legally obtain the freedoms that it grants. End of story.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I bet both could dwarf SCO's lawyers in terms of raw intelligence.
As soon as my crack legal team locates him, he will be sorry! I've often heard of companies having a crack legal team, but this is the first time that I've heard of one being on crack.
This is decidedly bending the topic, but ... Non-compete claims (and the "agreements" on which they are based) like this are evil.
What the defense attorney needs to do is to pound employers like this with claims of attempted involutary servitude -- they're attempting to prevent you from practicing your profession, denying you a livlihood -- trying to intimidate you into staying with them instead of changing jobs. As long as an employee doesn't start a directly competing business or take the prior employeer's art to a similar product, that employee ought (and used) to have the right to "what I know." Fortunately, to win such a countersuit, proof of preponderance of evidence is all that is needed, and (in the past at least) employees are usually favored over employers by juries, and, usually, judges.
Unfortunately, many attorneys are not willing to stick their necks out like this because corporate clients pay much better than do individuals, so they're always hoping for corporate business, which they're not likely to get if they go "business busting."
SCO
Linden, UT
Re: subpoenas in re Linux and/or GNU software
Dear SCO-folks,
All Linux and GNU code, including comments, is freely available to you and anyone else who wishes to see it, and always has been. Every release and every tiny change is there. Likewise, our communications with our fellow developers with respect to these programs has been freely available for years.
So, what is it you want? You already have access to everything we have on the subject. Just download it like everybody else does.
And then show us exactly what you claim has been misapproprated from your code.
Now, go away so we can write some more first class programs.
Sincerely,
Tux and The Gnu
So, the GNU tools are now an operating system by themselves?
This reminds me, I shouldn't be arguing with you...
Above the kernel, a large portion, but still a minority of the tools/apps in the typical Linux [kernel based] system are actualy signed over to the FSF or FSF original works.
The things that are actualy owned (FSF copyright assigned or FSF original works) are the only thing RMS can claim.
Agreed, there are some big ones...glibc and gcc are the huge. Many other's tools/apps may use the GPL but that is a choice of license, not a political/religious alignment or assingment of copyright.
I do agree that the GPL is brilliant and has made OSS/FreeSoftware possible. However, the majority of apps and code in the typical Linux [kernel based] system are _not_ owned by or have copyrights assinged to the FSF | RMS, nor are they original works of the FSF or RMS. There are also _several_ other OpenSource Licenses (if it's not (L)GPLed, it's not "FreeSoftware" - right) in use on the typical Linux [kernel based] system as well as many commercial applications in use by both people and businesses.
There are other OSes which ship with gcc, glib, and several other FSF owned/assinged FreeSoftware. Apples's OS X, many of the BSD's use gcc, you can get gcc for most UNIXs - gasp! even SCO's UNIXs! (hopefully that support gets pulled shortly). Are they all to be called GNU/<whateverOS>? When cigwin is installed on a Microsoft product, is it then GNU/Microsoft? Is that Linux is so popular that RMS has chosen to call it GNU/Linux?
Does the Freedom that he professes to be such a nessasery part of life and happiness (and that I appreciate greatly) not extended to speech (particulary in this case, the naming of a system - a group of programs)? Is St. IGNUcious worried that his works (which are great, and include the writing of a unique license has fostered a movement which is completely original in all of history) will not stand on their own and mark his place in history?
Mecworks BLOG
I'm all for bashing VASoftware and /., but the reason they own Slashdot is because they were always a Linux site. (Intresting, CmdrTaco wouldn't sell to VA or redhat, he wanted the site to maintain a Linus like independance. Eventualy, the site was sold to a small media company, and CT and Hemos were made board members. Then VA purchaced that company...)
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
EFF != FSF.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
GNU is more like the frame. Or maybe it's like the Steering wheel, Tail lights, break pads, cigarette lighter, etc. You need all that stuff to have a car, but by itself it's not one, and there a lot in a car that is not part of it as well. Lots of important stuff in a Distro is GNU, but lots of things of varying importance are not.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Last I checked, Intel had worked very hard to make their compiler comptatable with the Linux source code, and using said compiler would actualy give you improved performance over GCC.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
The simplest law I can think of that would kill the GPL would be to say that you can not 'exclusively' give away copyrighted material. That is, you can't make something free for a certan class of people, but not others. So GPL haters can still use the source. Then, the law would also state that you can mix 'free' information with non-free information, and you only need to redistribute the original free content.
I think it'd be more likely to see laws protecting OSS these days, then killing it.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
First of all without GNU, there wouldn't have been a GCC and I haven't exactly seen a lot of other choices floating around. There were a *lot* of really crap compilers (every other CS student's undergraduate project) that then seemed to be sold.
GCC worked because of the GPL. Cygnus did a lot of work on it, but they didn't write it. Drepper, if anything, is only talking about the C library which has changed in major ways over the years. RH are doing a lot of work on GCC, but so are very many other people. Without Stallman's development model and his emphasis on portability in the original design, it wouldn't have happened.
I did some hacks on GCC many years ago (early 2.x) to fix some issues with a port and whilst a lot of people had contributed - it was clear that structure came from Stallman.
See my journal, I write things there
I'm not saying that I agree with their argument, I'm just trying to describe what I think their argument is.
From what I can tell, they think that you can't grant unlimited distribution rights with restrictions like insisting that the source code has to be available - according to them, if any license grants unlimited distribution rights, then the licensed work automatically becomes public domain, the owners of the work lose their copyrights, and any attempted restrictions on the distribution on the newly-public-domain-work are null and void.
I don't think they'll win with such an argument, but the U.S. Judicial system has been known to make some really anti-common-sense decisions, so I'm hoping the judge(s) in this case are competent.
you are wrong.
If there is something that is pure and good, is does not matter the state of those that are exposed to it. They will be improved.
The goal is not to convince them semantically that RMS is right, the goal is to improve.
--
O.k. back from the abstract... Your 'bad people' are who exactly?
It is not a 'real good thing' to turn away the vast majority of people because they will not adopt a hair-splitting assesment.
'Free Software' is the single dumbest marketing term ever concieved, considering the perceived versus intended understanding of the term in a market economy.
+&x
Linux is a kernel.
GNU is a layer above a kernel.
GNU can work with "many" kernels - if you use Linux as a kernel you have an OS called GNU/Linux.
The lawsuit is about a contract dispute between SCO and IBM over code that went into the Linux kernel.
RMS works on GNU, not Linux. This means that some of his work is connected with GNU/Linux but NOT Linux.
Therefore RMS is irrelevant to the lawsuit.
All this in a magazine like Forbes!
Holy crap and WOW! This might now be adopted by others in the press, and I love the "Linux Operating System Kernel" naming convention as a trade-off.
Wonderful. Now if only the Nobel committee would consider him and Torvalds for a Nobel Prize for sacrificing much of their lives for the sake of computing humanity's freedom, THEN we'll be getting somewhere.
If so, it would be perfectly consistent with other federal legislation, setting higher standards for private citizens than for their "civil servants." (1)
The Web is like Usenet, but
the elephants are untrained.
That's one interpretation. Another is that it's a Microsoft sponsored scheme to undermine Linux.
In which case it's still about money, just not for SCO.
</tinfoil hat>
"As part of their defense, IBM claims that SCO's claims are rubbish from the get-go"
No, they do not. In IBM's counter-suit, they claim that SCO has distributed under the GPL. But based on what I've read, this is not IBM's defense; their defense is actually much simpler: "You won't tell us what is infrining"
Read it more carefully. He's saying that a version of the GNU OS is being referred to as Linux, and referring to the GNU OS in a more general sense than GNU/Linux.
You mean like those non-Linux versions of Debian, like Debian GNU/Hurd, Debian GNU/NetBSD, Debian GNU/FreeBSD, Debian GNU/Win32 and the upcoming Debian GNU/ELKS (based on the ELKS kernel for 8086 and 80286 et al), right? What is your point again?
The best explaination of this whole naming farce I've read so far is Chapter 10 of Free as in Freedom by Sam Williams. It's available online. Instead of pretending to be unbiased, it actually shows every biased point of view, from different angles, showing that basically all of the people involved have their own agendas and egos.
Linux vs. GNU/Linux OS naming schism is not a simple issue and should not be treated as such. It represents the Open Source fork of the Free Software movement and is equally complicated as the infamous Lucid Emacs vs. GNU Emacs schism. Your Score:5, Insightful comment (yes, I am jealous) is an extreme oversimplification of a very complicated and interesting issue.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
The simplest law I can think of that would kill the GPL would be to say that you can not 'exclusively' give away copyrighted material. That is, you can't make something free for a certan class of people, but not others.
This wouldn't affect anything. The GPL doesn't "give away" anything, to any class of people, exclusively or otherwise. It offers a trade--you may have a copy of the software to use and/or modify, if and only if you agree to abide by certain terms. This is known as "a valueble consideration" and is just as much payment as if you had to fork over cash. GPL'd software isn't "free" (in the no strings attached sense) to anyone.
What your proposed law would do is mess up all sorts of academic licences (e.g. the "free for non-comercial use" ones) and a lot of promo-ware for closed source software (e.g. stuff given away free to "qualified customers").
-- MarkusQ
The GPL's strongarm is the existence of plain old ordinary copyright law. Without it, the GPL would be meaningless.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Like I said, I'm not disagreeing with you - but the argument that SCO is making is that by not requiring charging any money for the product, and by not having any legal way of preventing somebody from distributing the product, the product has become public domain and the original copyright holder doesn't have the right anymore to put any further limitations on its distribution.
Like I said, I'm not disagreeing with your argument, I'm just trying to describe what I think SCO's argument is. You don't need to convince _me_ that you're right - you need to convince the judge (and jury?) hearing the case.
So, tell me, how does such a ruling not destroy every last priviledge that copyright grants in the first place?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1124/096.html
Some choice quotes.(fair use)
"Some teche exeds say SCO is bluffing and running a shakedown. Investors believe otherwise."
"In a weird twist IBM, which owns one of the largest patent portfolios in the world, now finds itself allied wsith a shaggy ideologue who opposes patents, copyrights and even the practice of charging money for software."
(Quoting McBride on Hollywood) "It's hypocritical for them to be going around saying that they don't want their stuff to be given away for free, but at the same time saying. 'Boy, this free stuff sure is cool,'"
Like he (and Daniel Lyons) can't tell there's a difference between something that the owner gives away, and something that is taken against the owner's will?