Slashdot Mirror
McBride Speaks, In Person And In Print
Phil Windley writes "Darl McBride gave the keynote at CDXPO this evening and held a press conference afterwards. I've posted my summary of his talk and the press conference on my weblog. In his talk, Darl seemed to be saying "Don't hate me. I'm only doing what I had to do."" On the other hand, in this interesting interview with CRN, McBride comes one whisker from likening Linux users to drug users, renews threats to sue end users, and says "all the big guys" are out to get SCO.
I've always wondered about people like Darl McBride. Obviously, they are paid a great deal of money to put a certain spin on things, and they try very hard to do it. What I've never understood about the psychology of it is this: do they actually believe themselves? Do they start out knowing they are lying, then convince themselves about it along the way? Or does the notion of truth not even cross their minds, as they are busy trying to define the reality they want?
CRN: How can you win suing customers and what happens if you go after HP customer?
McBride: The interesting scenario is, do you go after an HP customer or an IBM customer? That's what David is the master of. That's his final decision
So, if I am understanding this, the lawer is in charge.
Anybody else shocked?
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I'm posting anonymously from a coffee shop so I don't end up getting a subpoena. A looong time ago, I used to work for SCO. When I started, I didn't think it was a bad company, but my opinion changed gradually. It's hard to put my finger on any one thing, but it seemed like the corporate culture was a little...strange. I had never worked at a tech company before, but I found it odd that upper management would get defensive when they read a bad review on SCO Unix. It seemed to me that they should have been taking the criticism to be constructive, so they could improve their product. But they took a "we know what's best for you, because we're smarter than you" kind of attitude. Not everyone agreed with them, as I found out at many an exit interview. It makes me wonder if this attitude blossomed and overtook the company.
Well, first off, Darl McBride shows that he *completely* misses the distinction of free-as-in-speech Free Software and reduces the GPL to Free Beer. Sad. Granted, it is kinda hard to sell GPL software, but he doesn't seem to understand that a lot of what people love about Linux has less to do with price and more to do with freedom. The ability to get access to the source code at no additional charge. The ability to create 'derivative works' from GPL software as you please (well except that it too has to be GPL'ed of course), and the ability to distribute those changes. To fork projects when necessary.
And, most importantly, not having one central company or organization claiming total control over the OS. One of the things I love about Free Software, especially for the Operating System is that I think it is *crucial* for there to be a viable, widely used Free-as-in-speech OS Platform for everyone in the world to be able to use without it being leveraged to one company's or government's or whatever advantage. A true 'level playing field.'
So, SCO doesn't get it. Darl wants everyone to stop 'crucifying' him and SCO for doing what they "have to" in order to survive and leverage the investment they made in Unix. Everyone is picking on him, especially IBM who are big bullies (note this isn't my opinion - I'm just summarizing McBride). Oh, also SCO likes Open Source and Linux - we aren't out to destroy Linux and Open Source - we just want $700 dollars for every CPU that runs Linux commercially. Don't hate us, we want to co-exist peacefully with Open Source.
Oh, and the best part - the GPL is dead - Open Source isn't dead, just the GPL because it isn't friendly enough to business according to Darl. And, Free (as in beer) linux is dead (nevermind Debian and other non-commercial distros).
Lastly, in the world of Darl McBride, the BSD's don't exist. He didn't mention them ONCE in the presentation. And there were a couple times (Unix History discussion, as well as a few other places) where it would have probably been quite appropriate to mention them. Along those lines, SCO == UNIX, and we own the copyright to ALL UNIX (again what about the BSD's?).
Oh he did clarify that AIX, HP/UX, et al are 'owned' by the respective companies, but that SCO 'controls' all of them as the root of the unix tree.
I dunno. I really at this point just wish SCO would put up or shut up. Show definitely that there is wide-spread infringement instead of just throwing out "We have STRONG IP claims" (Take our word for it). Basically, this issue needs to go to court and be resolved.
Speaking of which, here's the SCO lawsuit scheme: IBM is not a copyright infringment case - it's breach of contract. But if people who use Linux don't buy Unix Licenses, we will sue them for copyright infringement. (Which is basically what they've been saying all along - no surprise there).
So what I hear, when I hear McBride make that statement is IBM probably has the resources and expertise to discredit our copyright infringment claims - so we are going to go after small fish who (we hope) can't reasonably defend against the infringement claims, and gradually build precedent one case at a time and then go after the big companies when we have a few cases behind us that gave us favorable findings.
This shows how completely clueless they are about the GPL. Royalties are explicitly forbidden. The code is either distributed without being encumbered or it cannot be distributed.
"...You don't have to be a programmer at all to see copying had occurred. It wasn't just ten lines of code, that example was over 80 to 100 lines of code. Later some of the Linux people said that code shouldn't have been there, Bruce Perens said it was development problem and 'we've taken it out.' My analogy is [that's] like a bank robber with posse in pursuit swinging back by the bank and throwing the money back in...
In that one example, copyrighted code had been misappropriated and there's substantial benefit out there that has still not been rectified. There are other literal copyright infringements that we have not publicly provided, we'll save those for court. "
Linus has always stated that we'll rip everything out if the code was shown. McBride has even mentioned that in interviews and said something like "Hey, that's great! We want that to happen, too."
Bank robbers? Substantial benefit? The truth is that they would rather keep the IP in there and keep the linux kernel, charging us for each CPU.
The only problem is this: What would keep anyone from forking the kernel at the point where all "infringing code" had been ripped out. Sure, the tree would be on fire, but I doubt it would take TOO long for some seriously pissed off coders to re-write the missing items.
I can't wait to watch the flamage in court.
-- I'd say your post was about 3 monkeys, 18 minutes.
"Samba isn't your IP. What gives you the right to sell the copyrighted work of others?"
What can SCO possibly answer, while maintaining that the GPL is illegitimate?
how many lines are there in 'linux' anyways?
i forgot the numbers(they've been posted to sco articles quite frequently).
do they match up even nearly with 1million=20%?
his an asshat of course, i wonder if he could answer how many lines of code sco claims to have ownership of are used in a compile of a kernel meant for normal x86 desktop? zero?
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
It's the cost of "playing the game" of business...sitting around board tables, jet setting to last-minute meetings--it's a drug of "power".
Guys like him start out "at the bottom" in the old boys network. They typically go from newbie to boss in a short time...he's probably never actually researched ANYTHING to do with copyright or patent on his OWN...delegating doesn't count. Guys like him deal in what they WANT...not what's REAL. I find executives as a class get a surprising amount of info from word-of-mouth, Forbes [& such], and CNN...far more often than say..googling for a copy of the LAW, or court cases/common practice to support their claims.
I find they're like the kids in school that don't know the game really well, but can argue the rules 'till everyone is bored and gives up.
I've never purchased a mainstream commercial distribution. Other than dabbling with demonstrative releases of RedHat and SuSE for about a total of six months, I've used Slackware or Debian since I started using Linux back in 1996. I think that once I ordered a Cheapbytes CD of Slackware for 8.0 or something like that, but it was less than the cost of a large coke at a fast food restaurant.
So, Darl, faced with a product that is very often free to hobbyists or companies willing to support themselves internally is going to gain revenue from this how? If I never touch anything to do with Caldera Systems, the only way that they're going to even know that I have my copies of Linux would be to stage a BSA-style raid on my home or business, count the machines, audit the software, and the like.
This does scare me. Not in the sense that I think that Darl and his other brother Darl will win, but that if they were to somehow squeak by with a court victory, establish precedent, and continue winning court victories that somehow gave them rights to that which they shouldn't otherwise, what's to stop them from being even more asinine?
I have no love for the company whose operating system has the most market share, but at various times, when working for computer companies that sold product, if something were amiss, an actually friendly representative would come in and identify himself as a rep, tell us how the product distribution for the product (usually the OS) worked (like, minimum pricing put into the wholesale distribution), cite our ad if the price were lower than the initial wholesale price, and if something were amiss, he'd inspect the product. A couple of times we had forged copies, which was noticeable on the booklets on further inspection, and he traded us all of the faulty software for good copies, all that he wanted to know was where we got them. No fuss, no muss, no lawyers talking, even for software that would be fairly easy to prove as illegitimate if it came down to it.
Compare this to Caldera in their approach. They're huffing and puffing about $600+ licencing fees for the OS. Everone who bends and pays encourages them to seek out everyone else that has "product", regardless of origin. They'll be querying webservers, looking at NAT and Masquerade data that they find, and making a big pain out of themselves. They'll call the FBI to attempt to root out the "piracy" of what they "own" in BSA-style raids. They'll make a mockery of the criminal justice system the same as they have the civil system.
Yes, I'm being extremely paranoid, but a little paranoia now is better than a terrible situation later, especially if ways to combat this can be found.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
It's kind of hollow words that we are not showing code, because we have shown examples and if we keep showing it, [Linux leaders will] just take that out and say 'no harm no foul.'
Sontag admits that SCO is not releasing the information required to rectify the situation and, if SCO shows which code might be misappropriated, Linux leaders will remove the offending code.
But there are over one million lines of code that we have identified that are derivative works by IBM and Sequent that have been contributed into Linux that we have identified and there's been no effort by Linux leaders to start acting and rectify that situation.
But Sontag also claims Linux leaders aren't trying to rectify the situation... Sigh.
SCO sees it's dying but knows it has IP rights in some of its stuff. Because the kernel code is open source, it invests the time and resources of an unscrupulous individual or two to inject infringing code into the kernel. A year later, it announces the travesty of justice it has just discovered, and sues.
Now imagine a company desperate to get rid of Linux and with plenty of time, deep pockets, and a history of low dealing gets a similar idea. We'll call them, for fun, Microsoft.
I know it would be fraudulent and criminal and I'm not suggesting it's about to happen or even that MS would do that, just that the open source model makes it easier for someone to pull a stunt like that.
ps: I know you can't just submit code and magically it's there in the kernel. I'm talking about either deliberate long term malfeasance or a rogue employee who gets a 'bright' idea and hatches a longish term plan.
pps: I know this could easily happen (and has happened) with proprietary source companies as well .. my point is it would be easier w/ open source, that's all.
ppps: I don't think it's a particularly brilliant insight .. just throwing it out there...
Samba was developed in Australia, where the law specifically allows for reverse engineering to allow compatibility with other products. There is no Microsoft IP in the Samba code.
The original copyright point raised by CoughDropAddict holds. The GPL is a set of rules that the author of a copyrighted work applies to other people who wish to use that work. If SCO doesn't agree to those rules, standard copyright laws apply - meaning SCO can NOT legally sell the product. It's not their IP.
They can sell Samba. They can diss the GPL. They can't do both.
Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!
Sane temperatures? Finally! Now all the millions of injuries caused by flaming coffee and apple pies will stop! Oh wait... 99.99% of all the people who purchased and consumed those products had no problems at all. In fact they enjoyed the steaming hot apple pies and coffee. They weren't retards who stuffed a steaming apple pie into their mouth with no common sense at all. I have no sympathy for these idiots at all. I have no compassion for children who ate a burning-hot apple pie and suffered transient pain. It was frivolous, because it's the same as me suing Porsche for making their cars too fast. Sure they can be fast, but if they can go 200mph then I might go too fast and get into an accident. I can't handle their quality products so I should make them conform to my sheep-like ideals.
The unpredictable aspects of the legal system are definitely there, though I wouldn't be so paranoid about it as all that.
Either way -- I think I'm going to skip these SCO articles from now on. CRN's interview with McBride was just so frustrating to read -- that guy is such a snake and such a master of spin, it pisses me off to no end, and there's not a thing I can do about it. If this case were going to be resolved anytime soon, I'd stick around to cheer, but as it is, I have no desire to sit around interminably stewing in bile.
What's the practical approach to this?
What can a regular, IANAL geek do?
Donate to the FSF, since the GPL's getting involved? Somehow I don't think IBM needs my donation to its legal fund. Write letters to editors?
There are only 10 types of people: those who understand decimal, those who don't, and, uh, 8 other types I forget.
"all the big guys" are out to get SCO"
FYI, Darl, the big guys aren't out to get you anymore than I am out to get a mosquito that keeps buzzing around my head. You keep pissing them off and eventually they will want to swat you
Now the little guys, all of us linux users and many slashdotters alike whom you are pissing off a great deal: we'd definately like to see you suffer a painful and humiliating spiral down the corporate toilet. But the big guys have a bigger flyswatter, so you probably notice it coming a lot sooner...
Sure, but he doesn't have to destroy Linux in the process. If SCO has been wronged then SCO will be compensated. But Darl is doing his level best to ruin everything good about Linux in his attempt to make money.
Oh yeah, he says he doesn't want to "destroy" Linux. He's lying. In the CRN interview he states without ambiguity that he wants SCO to be paid for every installation of Linux. He publicly defames the GPL. He attacks the development process. He attacks the developers! He makes critical but not constructive statements about Free Software.
But the worst act of all. The most despicable and heinous act. Darl refuses to help the Linux developers remove the alleged copied code. Darl seems content to allow the alleged infringements to continue in perpetuity so as to line his own pockets. Linux will be destroyed by that act alone. Darl doesn't give a fuck about that. It's his money, right? Linux is his bitch and he can charge whatever he damn well likes. Bad luck to all the millions of developers who poured their heart and soul into creating a community owned project. It's his! He gets to charge $699 for it. Nobody else. Just him!
These are immoral acts. He has every right to defend SCO's property. He has every right to get compensation for use of SCO's property. He has every right to sue IBM so a court can decide the truth of that matter. But he's a fucking prick in the way he's going about it.
I hope he goes to prison.
"Free software removes the incentive for innovation. There will lost jobs and lack of competition. SCO is in a tug-of-war between those who want software to be free and those who support proprietary software. SCO is a bellwether for this giant tug-of-war."
Analysis
Those who want software to be free - FSF, GNU/Linux, FreeBSD, basically the whole Open Source Movement
Those who support proprietary software - Microsoft, Apple
So this puts SCO as the bellwether (hah) between Microsoft and Open Source... Which one is SCO going after legally? Open Source... So SCO really isn't in the middle, SCO is in bed with Microsoft. Darl doesn't want Linux to be free anymore, he wants SCO to be able to get a percentage of the sale. Fine, I downloaded Knoppix for free, 10% of nothing is still nothing Darl.
He says removing the code won't fix the transgression. He's out to kill the GPL, but they use the GPL to give them the ability to include Samba in their OpenServer software.'
This guy is nothing by a Microsoft Toadie in my opinion, since the financial backing for their legal assistance has come from Licensing in which Microsoft is one of two companies that purchased licenses from SCO.
"There's no free lunch or free Linux. The value proposition of Linux is UNIX for free. Free models such as free music, free Internet, free bandwidth, and free love haven't worked."
Free software encourages innovation, applications get developed and ideas get created which a commercial firm would never give their employees time to even explore. Free internet, and bandwidth were commercial ventures, based on advertising revenue, and they failed because they were commercial ventures. Free music hasn't been tried by the music industry, except by the Grateful Dead and they'll tell you how successful it has made them. Maybe this is a snipe at Michael Robertson and Lindows, but Lindows sold out to SCO and is in no danger of being sued for distributing their version of Debian/KDE. Free software is making leaps and bounds, Open Office and GNU/Linux has the potential to free School Districts, Governments (Local and Federal) from the Microsoft Tyrant and save taxpayers money, money that can be given back or be used to give kids a better education, better healthcare for the elderly, better roads, etc...
Darl though thinks GNU/Linux is akin to a communist movement, so obviously those benefits which assist the general public might be too socialist for his taste as well.
He says there will be lost jobs, likely because countries like Brazil will not need to outsource projects to the US or other countries when they switch to to GNU/Linux, China won't have to pay licensing fees for DVD players or to Microsoft for their OS'es and software, etc... Microsoft will have to lay off developers/employees since their business will decrease worldwide as Microsoft products get dumped in favor of Open Source solutions. Nevermind that the money saved will likely be deployed in other ways, bolstering those countries social programs, and from small businesses which will be able to grow their capacity quicker since they haven't been able to pay Microsoft licensing fees.
Darl's also afraid Walgreens will replace their 386's running Unix for their registers and store computers with something more modern, just as other retailers will as GNU/Linux based solutions become available. GNU/Linux can save a lot of people, governments, and institutions money.
BTW. Word tries to correct FreeBSD as Freebees
I get so violently irritated every time I read yet another Darl McBride piece that I have the impulsive feeling to go up and smack him him in the face, my fist between his astonished eyes, when I see the slime bag standing in front of an audience in a suit that is two sizes to big for him (canal rats are not used to the daylight it seems). I gather that many other feel the same way as I do or else Darl McFuck would not now have bodyguards to save his arse when he opens that sewage pipe he calls his mouth.
After reading his waffling and calming myself down a bit, I realise some things, which follow:
1.Every time a question is posed about SCO's products he comes out with very obvious marketing speak and hubris about how exited SCO resellers are and about the supposed 2 million servers (do cash registers count as servers?) running SCO warez. This should be blindly obvious. It would be marketing suicide and almost unheard of for any CEO to admit that the SEC filings were in any way truthful about the true state of the company. Why hasn't anyone thought to ask him about the SEC filings his own company made????
2.SCO's case, as far as I can tell from the respective IBM and SCO court filings, is on weak ground at best. SCO has yet to answer IBM's request on a line for line clarification of exactly which files are infringing SysV R4 copyright. They have claimed in their answer to IBM that some 531 files are infringing, with some 30'000 lines. This is not anywhere near the "half a million lines" that he talks about in public. But he hasn't specified any lines directly. Why???????????
3.SCO distributed Linux for a long time after they had started their legal proceedings, and I'm damn sure this is going to have an effect on the case. Why isn't this point raised in press interviews???
4.SCO's public accusations and threats are almost certainly going to be taken into account in the case. One must note that McBride has not once talked specifically about any company that he will threaten with the $699/$1399 charge. This is obviously because once he does that, he faces being sued by that company for extortion. Almost all of SCO's public speech is stock value influencing bluff. And no one thought to ask him about a specific company???
5. McFuck finally mentioned that BSD is in the clear, but in the same sentence mentions that BSD code is in Linux without the copyright information, yet makes no mention about SCO products using the same code. And no one thought to ask????
6. McBrat says that Samba is not infringing anything, so SCO can use it. Nice of him isn't it? It fits in with his strategy of trying to weaken the GPL by appealing to marketing greed that is so fucking rampant on Wall Street. He wants it "friendlier" to business. It should be obvious that he wants to save his arse for distributing stuff under the GPL for so long, and the fact that he faces copyright infringement of his own even if the GPL is invalid.
I realise that many prominent GPL contributors don't want to frighten off businesses by suing SCO for copyright infringement or breach of contract, including Linus. Yet everyone who has been accused publicly of something by SCO has gotten involved whether they wanted it or not. And this irritates me. Why do Linus and Co not defend themselves? Why do they not start legal action against SCO? Why is it that almost no one from the OSS crowd ever tries to speak to standard industry rags and make decent legal points about SCO? I get so fricking mad when Linus does his dumb hippy free love act in the press interviews until he finally gets subpoenaed by SCO's team of legal drug dealers. Why the fuck does no one stand up in public for fuck sake?
Sorry for the rant, but this whole SCO thing is so publicly damaging for the GPL and Linux, and the fact way the media and the stock markets work is that one is automatically guilty when one makes no good comment.
Not the "Always Wondered" thread. I've had the same debate with a coworker about Bill Gates. Does he believe his clearly false statements are true?
I see this in all kinds of leaders and I've never been able to find the answer.