Slashdot Mirror
More Damning SCO Evidence At Groklaw
An anonymous reader writes "There's a very interesting story up at Groklaw right now. PJ reports on new evidence that Chris Hellwig, a SCO employee, contributed code to SMP, XFS, and JFS and did so with the knowledge of his supervisor." Groklaw is thorough, and this is another good example of just quite how thorough.
This has been known for quite a while, and to be honest it doesn't change that much. SCO will simply claim they had no idea where this code originated for at the time and so never sanctioned its official distribution. Their entire case is ridiculous, however it would be ridiculous even if they hadn't ever distributed linux or contributed to the kernel.
If it is possible to prove conspiracy, it SCO will be left without any recourse in regard to its so called "intellectual property," which Novell still owns... Also, if conspiracy is proven, SCO, and its board, will face criminal, as well as civil penalties.
Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
"This is a Linux country; On a quiet night, you can hear SCO and its legal case cracking under the weight of its ever mounting lies."
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
If this is true and is proven to be true, heads will roll, namely SCO's.
After all this, I can't believe that this has come out, it doesn't surprise me in this day and age of sleazy business tactics, but this is really low. They should be ashamed of themselves.
I hope the FBI, DoJ and Stock Exachange Commission get involved now as it looks like pumpndump, Fraud, extortion, and slander to me.
"You're on my side and the dark side, like Lando Calrissian?" --Gimpy, Undergrads
Cha Ching!
He is in the top-ten list of commits to both the Linux 2.4 and Linux 2.5 tree according to the Bitkeeper statistics (which he hasn't faked himself but still should be taken with care).
After a number of smaller network administration and programming contracts he worked for Caldera's German development subsidiary on various kernel and userlevel aspects of the OpenLinux distribution. Last year he joined the fileystem and storage group at SGI and is focussing on XFS for Linux now.
http://www.ukuug.org/bios+profiles/CHellwig.sht
Look here and enjoy SCO's own word on how they supported and contributef to Linux. Year 2000 is the best.
Quote from May 2000
A corporate sponsor of Linux International, SCO has always supported open standards, UNIX Systems and server-based technologies and solutions that benefit business computing. Our engineers have continuously participated in the Open Source movement, providing source code such as lxrun, and the OpenSAR kernel monitoring utility.
Compare this to the legal filing they made here a few days ago telling the Judge that they never contributed Code.
Help fight continental drift.
I guess that's why they are attacking the GPL as much as they are. Since their employee gave away the code under the direction of his supervisor, the only way they can take it back is to nullify the whole process so that proprietary code can never be given away. Otherwise, even if they planted it, it's a losing battle.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I don't think I'm the only person thinking this: what if SCO planted their code in Linux? Maybe they were planning this all along.
Occam's Razor for conspiracy theorists suggests that one should never ascribe to conspiracy what can be ascribed to incompetence. SCO/Caldera submtted a bunch of code to the Linux kernel. Much later, Darl and company come along, see code in the Linux kernel that matches code they have copyright, and without a clue about what they are doing, thing that they've found a goldmine.
Assuredly SCO has given ample evidece of being blindingly incompetent in the past, such that sheer incompetence is hands-down the most plausible explanation here.
-Rob
No, this is not new, but PJ continues to impress.
You remember when SCO first made these claims, and you had a bunch of people running around saying "they might be right, they might be right...", and basically defending SCO?
Where are they now?
Jason Lotito
Her efforts in putting together this site, with the participation of so many knowledgeable contributers is fascinating, and I'm sure it's valuable to those who oppose SCO's legal antics. I find the site to be generally "wide and deep" (thanks, Darl), and I'll wager that the people at SCO take very little humor from it. I wonder if the legal teams at IBM and Red Hat find it interesting? It's seems that there's a huge amount of free legal and technical research being undertaken.
Pamala Jones has my early vote for "Linux Booster of the Year for 2003".
In the case of JFS, they not only distributed Linux with JFS, one of Caldera's employees, Christoph Hellwig, contributed code to JFS...
So? You would think that since Caldera itself sold GPL'ed stuff, that would stop SCO from suing, period. But it hasn't.
They could simply say that Hellwig was doing this in his spare time, or that he and his boss were coding for Linux in their spare time. The problem here is, Hellwig is a peon. Just another worker bee. Doesn't matter what employees do, it's a question of whether the top executive know. Did they know what Hellwig was doing? Did they realize all the implications? Those are the real questions. And here we enter the realm of plausible deniability (lawyers can jump in to correct me anytime now). Did the executives know what one worker bee was doing? Hell no! Why do they care what one of their workers was doing in his free time?
Wake me up when Hellwig's boss's boss's boss's boss knew about the problem, understood the implications, wrote a letter, and forwarded it to his boss, who then fired it up through management to the upper echelons.
ibmlawsuit.com, googlesuit.com
Slowly, the foolishness of this entire activity will be seen, and then McBride can be sued into non-existence for taking far too much time with these stupidities. He must be made to pay, a la Kenneth Lay, for his hubris.
...tizzyd
That's giving too much moral credit. Maybe they know; maybe they just don't care. But that would be giving them too much intellectual credit. Decisions, decisions. I'm waiting for a Chewbacca defense eventually.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Cross your heart and hope to die, SCO? Or cross your fingers behind your back? Let's see what the evidence shows.
SCO has specifically mentioned the following four as being code at issue in this case: JFS, NUMA, RCU, and SMP, and while it is conceivable that the "subject code" they are talking about in this response to IBM's interrogatory is referring to some other code, it seems reasonable to look at the code they have mentioned publicly. Actually, it's more than reasonable. It's our only choice, until they tell us exactly what code they are complaining about with specificity. Is it true that they never "authorized, approved or knowingly released" any of this code for inclusion in any Linux kernel or as part of any Linux distribution?
Let's start with JFS. In the case of JFS, they not only distributed Linux with JFS, one of Caldera's employees, Christoph Hellwig, contributed code to JFS, as Groklaw reported on July 18. Here is a snip from that article:
And he is listed on this page of JFS contributors. Here is IBM's page on Who Is Using JFS? and it lists United Linux. So they not only released a distro with JFS in it under the GPL, their employee helped make it h
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
how long does SCO intend to bang its head against this particular wall?
... to me this seems like an underhanded attempt to knock the wind out of our sails, regardless of whether or not our ship sinks. fortunately the open source movement does not seem to attract developers that quit at the first sign of difficulty, so i am optimistic that sco will fail even in this capacity.
... i was raised on a farm ... i rode plenty of horses in my day, let me tell you ... and the one thing i learned from shucking corn and milking cows was ALWAYS to claim that the other guy's ranch was really MY ranch, even though the other guy built his ranch all by himself from the ground up and never asked me for any help."
i suppose this does pose a threat to linux in terms of leaving a bad taste in vendors' mouths concerning but there really is absolutely no way SCO is going to shut us down.
even if SCO gives linux and gnu somewhat of a bad reputation, we already have major players in the industry who are committed to supporting linux (ibm, novell, sun). and by the time all of this bullshit blows over, linux will be even more robust and marketable, and our detractors will soon find themselves knocking down our doors once again to profit from our technology.
really the only thing we have to fear from the whole sco debacle is discouragement
but really the most appalling thing about the situation is sco's utter lack of common sense; it makes me wonder how they thought they were going to win in the first place (see below). how do they expect their argument to hold up in court when they STILL HAVE NOT YET PRODUCED ANY HARD EVIDENCE?!?
darl mcbride: "well
SCO, if you are reading this, pack your bags, go home. to quote eddie murphy (quoting richard pryor): "have a coke and a smile and shut the fuck up."
we all get the point that you don't like us, but unless you are going to actually do something about it, piss off.
I believe you are thinking of Hanlon's razor, Occam's razor is more general.
sic transit gloria mundi
You have a point, but I do believe most of the /. community is not so much defending IBM, but damning SCO because they aren't following the rules. In a copyright infringement you are supposed to recieve a "Cease & Desist" order first. Not only did Linux users globally get a "Cease & Desist" order, but SCO has never told any of us what exactly we are supposed to Cease or Desist! You can't tell somebody "Stop that" and not answer the obvious "Stop what?" you will get in response. And insofar as IBM's involvement, we're sticking up for them because they're sticking up for us who can't afford to fight this bullshit.
Kleedrac
Sure we wang, can.
There's a legal premise that would cover that kind of behavior: estoppel. Certain behavior on your part can bar you from later claiming damage in a civil suit. For example, if I told you it was okay to eat my lunch, I could not later sue you for improper consumption of my sandwich.
To the extent that an agent of The SCO Group helped develop and promote these technologies, The SCO Group is barred from making claims against others on that basis. There are lots of other defenses available, and other forms of estoppel than simple promissory estoppel (when you say something is acceptable, either explicitly or implicitly), but the above would apply to many defendants at once.
that in his yearly performance review, somewhere there is mention of contributions made to the kernel. Hell, I look back at some of my performance reviews and there is all sorts of "extra-curricular" stuff. If he had a half way decent boss, he would have included this stuff in his review to show initiative.
it makes me wonder how they thought they were going to win in the first place
I don't really think they had much of a chance to begin with, but because of economic downturns they decided they wouldn't be going down without a fight, or at least a gasping, death-throw-like struggle... like waving your arms and legs when you're falling off a cliff. It won't help you at all, but hey- why not? Unfortunatley, they decided to fight the bad fight.
Despite all this, I agree with your position of our survival wholeheartedly. Because of the diversity of contributors, Open Source is like sand- they can try to scoop it up all they want, but it'll just slip through their fingers.
Esoteric reference.
In sharp contrast to /.
Jonathan Pearce jonathan@pearce.name
3EAAFB2A http://www.jonathan.pearce.name/
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Since they have always refused to provide evidence, the general theory has been that their entire plan from the beginning was to pump and dump their stock, not to win a lawsuit.
I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, you can't prove anything.
.
.
.
Doh!
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Of course, there is lot of evidence against SCO and they will lose their case. But the fact is, even they know it. This whole SCO suit is all about keeping Linux from rapid adoption using FUD and legal tactics. With this strategy, Microsoft and allies have found a way to keep Linux away from the mainstream adopters. What's to stop Micosoft from using another puppet after SCO has lost it's case ? They've got enough money to throw around and huge incentive to do it.
SCO losing the case won't change anything. It's quite easy to bring up another entirely different legal issue concerning Linux and use FUD and media to publicize it. It takes at least 2 years to resolve such a case and Linux adoption will be affected for that period. Whoever said Microsoft has no answer to the Linux movement is merely ignorant, IMHO. Microsoft has laid out the tactics and played the first move. They are taking advantage of the weaknesses in the judicial system to keep legal issues concerning Linux afloat for a long time. What shoud the community do against these dirty tricks ?
Redhat's fund towards fighting future legal challenges is a step in the right direction. What we need is some way to certify Linux as free from copyright infringements and patent issues. A consortium (a division of OSDL, may be) can be formed to exclusively monitor the legal aspects of Linux Development process. A request for copyrights of all the code gone into the Linux kernel can pre-empt further copyright infringement lawsuits. I am not sure about the practicality of these steps, but we need to develop a sense of trust in the minds of mainstream adopters about the linux development process and other legal issues. Feel free to toss in your ideas.
getSexySig();
It seems statments from the man himsel are rare, but here are several interesting comments from Hellwig himself on the case.. (there are several others in the same thread.)
I feel sorry for the guy.. like so many other linux contributors caught up in this BS..
"Most of that stuff is also bullshit. The folks in IBM LTC that work
onm the kernel are mostly ex Sequent, not ex AIX folks. Now
Sequent also had a SVR4 source license for Dynix/PTX, but in fact
most of the scalability changes in SVR4.2 SM / ES actually come from
Sequent! (Just take a look at the Authors of the VFS and VM design
documents for SVR4.2 ES / MP).
AIX OTOH was only developed with a SVR3 source license up to AIX4,
and neverless the actual kernel does not resemble SVR3 or SVR4 at
all, and although I'm not sure I think they even only used it for userland
not the kernel.
AIX5L (that project Monterey) had additional components licenses from
SCO UnixWare like procfs or bfs - but IBM has very strict policies
that the AIX5 and Linux groups basically don't communicate. For example
I was involved in the JFS/Linux project which is very similar to the JFS2
in AIX5L because they're both based on JFS in OS/2 - when there were
bugs found in the old OS/2 codebase they weren't able to inform the
AIX folks about it or send patches. Similarly I wasn't able to get
information about the layout used for Posix ACL on AIX when I started to
implement those for Linux."
If you use them both, do you get Gilette's razor, with Occam's shaving you close, Hanlon's closer still?
Just because its a 'supervisor' doesn't mean the legal department sanctioned the 'code release'.
,etc.. I'm talking 'employees' here, regardless of position )
Unless you get specific permission from the actual 'company', the actions of any individual can still be considered improper. ( excluding the board, or CEO
---- Booth was a patriot ----
And of course, you all convieniently ignore IBM's counter suit which includes patent violations for stuff the slashdot crowd would ordinarily claim were "obvious".
I'll bite
You are forgetting the fact that these patents were not enforced until SCO picked the fight. Also SCO never asked for clarification, they just filed suit. IBM probly has some hideous patents hidden in its massive fortress of leagal solitude. I feel no remose for the kid punces the 800lb gorilla in the face, and then claims to be the victm when he gets his ass kicked.
As for Communisim, since when is doing your own thing communism, I like, enjoy and profit from open source software. In a way it is the Nash Equilibrium, in which we do not only what is best for us, but also what is best for the group. Now this is decidedly not communistic, its enlightened self intrest. After all its free as in freedom, do you horde your speech?
I am done, so why don't you take your troll energy and post some goatse links.
Did Glenn Beck rape and kill a girl in 1990? gb1990.com
Once the Groklaw site is no longer slashdotted go there and look at the discussion about Mr. Hellwig
He was not a peon and his boss was in charge of a couple of programs that SCO publicly supported. Like LSB.
That being said all the code writes to some extend are peons, but that does not mean SCO managements are not responsible
Lastly they will have an impossible task claiming that their peons are different from IBM's peons.
If SCO is not responsible neither is IBM. If works both ways.
Help fight continental drift.
Although I generally agree with using Occam's Razor in these instances, the time for relying on the incompetence defense has long passed. By now SCO must know their error and they still aren't withdrawing the suit. So although there may not have been malice (or "conspiracy") aforethought, there is certainly malice now.
And that's why SCO deserves no sympathy.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Look, I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but how is this insightful? This is another tinfoil hat theory that has no real proof to back it up. Sure, it could be true, but I do NOT condone this whole blame it all on Microsoft because they happen to benefit movement.
Grow up. Remember just yesterday there was discussion about how a) open source advocates love a good fight and b) they always blame everything on Microsoft?
Guess what? It's apparently true.
So this should be an affirmative defense against violating their copyright on these portions of the code that they intentionally placed under the GPL, assuming that the corporate entity SCO knowingly did so, the agent had proper authority (it would be hard to argue he didn't, since they had some of these specific claims in their marketing literature and under United Linux joint press releases and so on). Nonetheless, as with any legal argument, there are no guarantees or magic bullets in court. You still have to go pitch that the GPL was a legimitate contract that was entered into by SCO and the recipients/licensees.
Now it starts to seem more clear why SCO's attorneys want to attack the GPL itself. If the contract is illegitimate for other reasons, it seems like it could weaken an estoppel defense. Furthermore, to actually invoke promissory estoppel, I think you need to show that there is a lack of mutual assent as to the contract or the terms thereof. Since there's really no acknowledgement at all of what code may or may not have been "lifted" or where the infringement occurs, it's not yet possible to invoke estoppel until the discovery phase airs all this stuff out publically (which may never even happen).
> I wonder why Chris Hellwig himself does not reply.
If he's smart he has a lawyer advising him about that kind of thing right now.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Similar thing happened with AT&T and BSD, IIRC. AT&T claimed that their code was in BSD. It went to court. It emerged that it was AT&T that had taken code from BSD, rather than the other way round. AT&T settled for an undisclosed amount.
...I haven't actually laughed out loud (scared the cat, too) at a /. post for a while.
People at SCO know they are going down. I'm just happy they are not the same ones when they were Caldera, so I'll feel no remorse when they go out of business.
Assuredly SCO has given ample evidece of being blindingly incompetent in the past, such that sheer incompetence is hands-down the most plausible explanation here.
And what we're all waiting to hear, is if they've been criminally incompetent.
Refuse to make a statement in your sig!
...and therefore his followers think themselves perfectly in the right for limiting their rights while ignoring "Give unto Caesar" and separation of church and state, right?
Bít, zabít, jen proto, ze su liska!
Without a kernel debugger, developing an SMP kernel becomes increasingly difficult. Register at Groklaw, or wait till the article is published for all the nitty-gritty details.
How many will remember who SCO really was, in ten years, and what they did?
Been modded interesting, insightful and funny. Why does real life have to be so different?
where else would they be?
...and many former investors/employees are now dirt poor.
I didn't visit Slashdot when the cuecat controversy happened, but after reading this comment I went over the archives.
Cue cat may have had alot of money, but they blew it all giving out silly bar code scanners. This was their buisiness model.
The SCO has alot of money, and they are spending it all on litigation. This is the SCO's buisiness model.
There's a substantial diference.
Sangloth
I'd appreciate any comment with a logical basis...it doesn't even have to agree with me.
SCO 1 sucked that they will pretty much ignore SCO 2. Not to mention that a legal precedent will be in place.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
Personally I lean toward the "SCO Upper Management is a bunch of fucking loonies" theory. Here's an article that puts concrete numbers on the effect SCO is having on linux adoption.
4 .a sp
http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/linux/archives/00019
16% may be a big number or a small number, depending on your point of view, but it's not what I'd call a palpable blow to Linux.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
He must be made to pay, a la Kenneth Lay, for his hubris.
The only problem with that is that Kenneth Lay hasn't paid. At most, they're going to hang a minor board executive and pin the whole thing on him.
I'd rather see him pay a la King Louis XIV.
swiiiiisssh! thump! spurt!
YANAL, yet you used the word "thereof"?
Egad!
http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
Which is to say, couldn't they conceivably claim issues with JCS, NUMA, RCU, and SMP code that's simply separate from what their boy Hellig was working near?
I realize that either way their argument is crap but it, if they are going to pull something like that, it's crap that they can still, albeit insultingly, disingenuously, and vexatiously, hold onto their claims and simply fail to admit what obvious liars they are?
Just wondering.
Sure, you can buy a dead or dying company and sue as if the damage had been done to you, but...
You just bought the company, and not only do you get the parts you wanted, you get the other parts, too. Just ask look into buying former/current property used for dry cleaning. Simpler yet, buy property with asbestos insulation.
Perhaps the new SCO bought the old SCOs damage, but they also bought the old SCOs actions wrt Open Source, including Christoph Hellwig's contributions, and all the implications thereof.
My other hope in this current chunk of mess, aside from SCO getting what it deserves, is that Hellwig doesn't suffer for any of this. Not to neglect the rest of the Open Source community, but it may well end up with Hellwig being at the eye of the storm.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Quothe Mr. Hellwig:
"It might be more interesting to look for stolen Linux code in Unixware,
I'd suggest with the support for a very well known Linux fileystem in
the Linux compat addon product for UnixWare.." (sic)
hint hint...
hint hint hint..
HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT!
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
IANAL (did you forget YOUR IANAL?), but I know that if a delivery boy were to crash into my car, during his delivery, I could not only sue him but his company, as well (did the legal department sanction that crash?). I also know that an "x-buyer" for company has the "appearance" of authority for up to 2 years. What does that mean? Even if he doesn't work for the company anymore, he can still order from suppliers and the company will be liable. The company has to notify each supplier or public announce the guy no longer works there. The law doesn't care what GOES INSIDE THE COMPANY. The law cares about what appears to be the situation to your average reasonable individual. Employees are the "agents" of the company. Though their scope is "narrow", if they act within the scope of their employment, it is as if the company is acting, itself. Legal department != company. Otherwise, the legal department would just go on break, and the company would never be liable for anything . . .
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
The evidence that SCO was broadly aware of this work lies in the SCO Linux 4 ("powered by UnitedLinux") marketing materials.
There is an interview from August last year where Darl McBride not only says that SCO Linux would be "certified enterprise-ready by IBM", he also says that he understood what Open Source was in 1994, when he was first shown Linux.
I do not believe that Darl McBride can continue to pretend that he (i) didn't know what the GPL was about, or (ii) that he didn't know that Linux was going to the Enterprise.
Unfortunately, it's kind of hard to use the Chewbacca defense when you're the one suing.
But then again, Dow Chemical was allowed by the US Courts to buy Union Carbide washed clean of any responsibility for their criminal negligence in releasing tons of methyl isocyanate gas into a residential area in Bhopal, India.
what liabilities become inherited in a takeover depends entirely on how much "justice" you can buy....
Stil, one man's Holocaust is another man's meal ticket - just ask Prescott Bush..
I have always thought it a cheap trick when a story creates a character that is so utterly unbelievably evil that all you what to see is them crushed under the grinding wheels of a gravel truck and extruded thru a rock crusher. And then of course they do in the end just to satisfy the primitive parts of your brain. This I believe is the hallmark of an inferior story and the definition of poor literature.
However here we have in real life several characters (that is SCO's upper managerment and new found lawyer buddys) that fit this description neatly. So let hurry this story line along - I will go pop some more popcorn.
Well most rational people can see that, but given SCO's past actions, would you put it past them?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
And if that was the argument being made you might have a point. But the article provides proof that SCO employees, operating under their manager's authority, put the code in question into Linux. This is not merely a distribution, but a contribution.
...the only thing we have to fear from the whole sco debacle is discouragement...
Let me nominate distraction as the biggest risk. Whenever one has had to circle the wagons, the resumed journey is never the same. A wonderful model of meritocracy may be forever changed into a quasi corporate structure -- at the extreme, leading to a world where Legal has to vet everything before its release.
This needn't be a negative, just acknowledgement that linux must evolve in an unexpected way, in order to survive and prosper in this unexpected New World. Still, I shed a tear.
"Inquiring Minds Want to Know!"
"Ai! Ai!" wailed Legolas, "A Balrog is come!"
s/Legolas/Darl/
I don't think a picture of PJ has ever been published, but I'm definitely getting this visual of 60'+ tall, wreathed in smoke, with a lash of flame close at hand for when fools trespass.
Keep up the good work PJ - and where is that 'donate via paypal' button on your site?
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
Thing the first, contracts do not have to be "signed" only "agreed to", a signature is only and singularly prima-facia evidence of agreement, not some magic fairy-dust of holy cannon with powers obscure and sublime.
Thing the second, the contract is right there for you to read, it is called the "General Public License".
The prima-facia evidence of agreement is, in fact, the act of distribution. The only legal way to distribute a work governed(*) by the GPL is to agree to the GPL.
If it(+) is not evidence of agreement, then it is INSTANTLY and UNARGUABLY prima-facia evidence of copyright infringement. Remember the whole $150,000 each instance penalty and all that?
This isn't rocket science here. Either they had express individual permission to distribute the material from ALL the authors, OR they agreed to the GPL, OR they are copyright thieves. There is no fourth choice with respect to this body of code.
(*) re "governed by the GPL". I can have a body of code (art) and give it to different people with different agreements and understandings attached to each separate transaction. Nothing magically lets one provanance [historical path of possession] jump the curb into another, even if the two pass eachother on the same network adaptor. If SCO *GOT* the material under the GPL, and didn't go back and re-get it under some other more invested agreement with each author (really the holder(s) of copyrights) then they can only distribute it in turn under the rules and restrictions placed on them by the provanance, namely the GPL.
(+) "it" being, "taking the code (art) contributed (and hence, who's copyright is owned/held) by parties other than the distributor".
So if they got it ONLY by GPL they may ONLY pass it on by GPL.
Period.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
SCO's case was never based on fact, they were using litigation as a business tool. A republican behavior becoming all too popular these days. And what's the downside? DirecTV sues the innocent along with the guilty and who's stopping them? And don't get me started on RIAA. And when it comes to fraud look at Enron, WorldCom and Putman. Millions of people bilked out of billions of dollars and how many have gone to jail? Three or four? McBride's playing the odds that even if the ploy doesn't work...and it's safe to say it's probably not going like they hoped...the company was dead anyway and their chances of facing any serious prison time were slim to none. When government is in the pocket of big business lobbyists, this is the reality. Welcome to Bush World.
Let's not take anything away from the outstanding research from Groklaw, though. That's really good work by someone there.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Sorry, blew the post...
The details of the contract from the GPL which govern are encompased in the following:
1) That SCO did receive the Linux kernel under the GPL.
2) That SCO did either modify existing code or add additional code to that kernel.
3) That SCO did gather those modifications together, thus creating a derrivative work
4) That SCO did then distribute that derrivative work either:
4a) as a compostite work under the GPL as requrired by their inclusion of the GPLed code they did not create themselves
OR
4b) in direct and deliberate contravention of the governing agreement (the GPL) and thus in violation of US and International copyright law.
5) That SCO did, through the actions of their employee(s), also directly submit many/some/all of those modifictions to the central management facilities of the Linux kernel, with the understanding that accpetance of such submission was prima-facia evidence of agreement to allow others to distribute those changes under the GPL.
In the case of 4a and 5, separately and taken togher, SCO needs must have put at least one chain of provenance of that code under the terms of the GPL
In the case of 4b SCO has spesifically and directly broken the law and may be held liable before a civil (or ciriminal in the DMCA age) court.
In no case is SCO stripped of their ability to separately distribute their WHOLLY ORIGINAL code (art) under any ADDITIONAL terms they wish, establishing a separate entitiy and provanance for such further distribution.
They MAY NOT, however, "take back" the GPLed provanance because they spesifically waived that right when they established that provanance.
They also MAY NOT separately distribute under new/separate/other provinance any elements (art) of their manufacture which are not themselves WHOLLY ORIGINAL.
The last is the fine point that makes some people barf up FUD so easily. If I sit down with a clean editor and make (say) a serial driver module that can be linked to the Linux kernel, I may keep it to myself, distribute it under GPL, or distribute it (separate from the kernel) under any other termis I choose. In fact I may do ALL THREE at the same time. The blank editor (and presuming the absence of significant copying) creates a "new work" with no provanance.
If I start with the *EXISTING* linux kernel serial driver, then I may keep it to myself or distributed it under the GPL, but I *MAY *NOT* distribute it under other terms I choose. The original work retains its provinance, and so its legal standing within my new work.
This is no more different than writing a novel. If you write a novel from scratch it is yours. If you write by simply editing my novel it is still mine even though it is also now kind of yours.
The only grey area comes when you write a new novel on a blank page, by reading all of my work, and then basing "significant" portions of your novel on the characters and situations that you harvested out of my work. [This being why you, for instance, cant write (and expect to publish with impunity) your own "Star Trek" novel without the permission of Paramount, who owns "Star Trek" just now.]
This is not that hard people... 8-)
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Maybe the whole suit isn't intended to win, but to kill off Linux by losing. Once execs hear "SCO lost their assets because one of their programmers contributed to Linux" they will do whatever they can to keep their own employees from contributing.
I realise some of those examples are criminal cases, but it doesnt matter: its symptomatic of the whole system. Im sure there are tons of other examples of cases with no merit at all still winning or having to be settled. Unfortunately, the facts have very little to do with our American "Justice" system.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
In plain english that means that they were not wearing their good underpants at the time they were told.
This is also known as the holeproof defence.
They've only filed one legal case.
Just one.
They've said that they'd file more.
Lots more.
Maybe lots and lots more.
But they've only filed one so far.
Barratry means filing multiple cases to harass someone. Like if I drag you into court on some charge (real or not). Then I file another one against you. Then another one.
It would be VERY INTERESTING if SCO did file more claims and a judge ruled that SCO was attempting to harass "Linux".
someone mod this parent up, 'k??
hinthinthinthinthinthinthinthinthinthinthint HINT HINT
damn lameness filter. hint... hint! hint?!
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
According to Groklaw his only comment so far has been "no comment." I can't remember whether that's on advice of counsel, or just evidence of his good sense.
Someone you trust is one of us.
it's starting to look more and more like Rambus's tactic; propose and "help" develop it with the tech community and then BAM....sue 'em afterwards....
Except in SCO's case, they used hardworking GPL programmers to develop linux for them to profit from it.
Kinda reminds me of a movie......hopefully, this also ends with the cheap bastards regretting it....like the movies.
MoFoQ gets his pitchfork cleaned & sharpened and refuels his flaming torch.
This should be a strong deterrent to lawyers everywhere who want to mess with geeks and intellectual property lawsuits. I mean, look at SCO, even with the money they have paid Boise and co., those lawyers heads must be reeling trying to understand all this stuff like NUMA and JFS and RCU. Do you think the other petty ambulance chasers trying to sue the gun manufacturers and mcdonalds and philip morris want a piece of this? And remember, the ultimate killing machine awaits, the geek-lawyer hybrid; available exclusively at IBM.
SCO: 800-726-8649
Verisign: 800-361-8319, 888-642-9675
Diebold: 800-433-VOTE (8683)
I wonder why Chris Hellwig himself does not reply.
Well, if you ever look in your day planner and see that for the next 6 weeks you have twice-per-week 3 hour meetings with the company lawyers for deposition training, you will wonder no more.
Now the most important questions to Pamela Jones (of GROKLAW):
Who is/are to thank for this work ?
Where does the responsible want the donations/ presents/ compliments/
endowments/ Nobel prices to be piled ?
Or more importantly - live in countries where bullshit isnt accepted!
:o/
That no US kernel maintainer has sued SCO is a clear indication, in my eyes, that the REAL problem here isnt SCO, but the US legal system!
MOD the reply UP, please.
The words you are looking for are "death throe". Not a flame. Just anally retentive information. :)
C//
The only reason not it matters if they can get married or not is because we give tax breaks to married couples. If we made government marriage-agnostic, then it wouldn't be seen as a rights issue at all, because common law marriages wouldn't exist.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
"Occam's Razor for conspiracy theorists suggests that one should never ascribe to conspiracy what can be ascribed to incompetence."
You're mixing, 'Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetance' and 'Do not multiply the entities beyond which is necessary to explain something'.
The latter one is Occam's Razor or the principle of parsimony.
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
"That's no mooon, it's a SPACESTATION".
:)
Oops, SCO is about to get blasted.
"...In your answer, ignore facts. Just go with what feels true..."
Chris,
You are fired!
regards
Daryl mcBride
Party A wrongs party B (let stipulate this true for now).
B sells the damage to C.
C sues party A.
As much as we may detest party C, they are doing a real service for party B. It's not any different from companies selling their bad accounts receivable to a collection agency. Supposing B is truly wronged. They may not be large enough to take on A. They may need the resources it would take for other business purposes. Their investors might not like the risk of a protracted lawsuit. They may not want to wait for several years to get some money back. This kind of arrangement allows them to walk away today with at least something for their troubles.
Note however this is different from this kind of situation:
Party A does business with party B.
Party B sells that part of the business to party C.
Party C trumps up some charges to blackmail A.
Party C proceeds to blackmail D,E, and F who were never a party to the A-B relationship.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Wrong. Doctrine of Apparent Authority--the employee is liable, but the employee's actions are valid and binding if outsiders have a reasonable belief that the employee was authorized, regardless of whether he actually was.
RTFA, but the clearest example:
You run a store. Random Hoser A walks in while you're taking a leak in a store uniform, and sells a $300 TV to Random Hoser B for $5. Random Hoser B is not liable, and gets a $5 TV, because A looked and acted like an employee. B is definitely liable for theft and the remaining $295+damages. However, the TV stays with A.
Similarly, if a SCO employee released code in a genuine and apparently authorized manner (and the guy's manager did in fact post such), the code is licensed under the GPL to Linux, even if SCO's higher management didn't authorize it, under the same doctrine. Linux is indemnified and the transaction is valid, and it is the unauthorized employees who are at fault.
Granted, if it was really the fault of rogue employees at SCO, it might be a good-faith thing to do to replace the code, but seeing how SCO is acting like a rabid bear holding a shark, I see no reason to give them any consideration.
"America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
Here's the contract: the social one. In the form of copyright law.
You = troll.
You = 0wn3d.
"America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
The investment scandals were a pyramid scheme that just happened to blow up in the Bush admins face, it would have done the same in a Gore administration (no realized that accountants were LYING during the Clinton administration - the Republican Congress sure wasn't complaining). The difference though is how a Gore administration would have handled it. I am quite sure Ken Lay would not be sitting in a mansion right now let's put it that way.
Saying Bush is anti-business regulation is to read from his campaign platform, that is not open to debate. The results bear that out: there has been NO significant jailtime for these crooks, and that is a direct result of Justice Dept. policy under the Bush administration. Why would you even argue that point?
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
> Christians don't believe that it is morally correct to limit the rights of homosexuals
Sure, except their right to life. I'm not going to lie and say it's the majority, but I'd be willing to put every dollar I own down on the bet that of the gay-bashers, a large majority of them are Christian and of them, most are anti-gay simply because the church tells them it's wrong, so they assume with all fervor that the church is right.
Please note, this isn't a post against christianity in general, just Christian gay-bashers.
> You can never read any news cause all you n00bs suck up the bandwidth.
Yes, it's the 100 or so new visitors sucking up all the bandwidth, and has nothing to do with the million already here...
Louis XIV died of old age...
Is there anything in the US legal system that is preventing US kernel maintainer from suing SCO?
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
I see three examples of it here. The opening phrase allows the writer to say, "Oh, I didn't think you wanted that information." The phrase "authorized, approved or knowingly released" allows the writer to respond that any releases (note they never claim not to have released the code) were not sanctioned. And, of course the big one: "the subject code." Until SCO deigns to define what code they're talking about, they can continue to claim that any releases they authorized are not the code in question.
In spite of this, they're in for a rough time if they need to argue in front of a judge that all of Caldera's pre-lawsuit Linux work was unintentional.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
from the groklaw page:
2 003/sco_os_update.ppt
> http://uk.sco.com/events/Partner_Briefings/March_
isn't this a proprietary M$ format?? dang.
Hanlon's razor actually reads, "Never attribute to malice, that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
I once had an "argument" of sorts over the distiction between incompetence and stupidity and their effectiveness within the context of the quote, and based on that argument, I'm convinced Hanlon (whoever the hell that is) meant "stupidity."
Hades, PoD: Official Advocate
Unfortunately, it's the same one that blocks the mass of computer users from understanding their machines - the mechanisms will mirror and magnify only the actions of those piloting them. When a monkey looks into a trading floor, no Warren Buffett looks out.
I bought this house and you know I'm boss
Ain't no h'aint gonna run me off
You just said that you have no personal experience or evidence for that belief other than a prejudice against Christianity that you've received from popular culture. If
Look, I could come up with all kinds of reasons to kill gays. I'm an atheist evolutionist? Well, I want to promote the human race, and homosexuality is an aberration that doesn't generate any children. (Hitler killed homosexuals too.) I'm a Christian/Muslim/Jew? God said it's wrong. I'm a Chinese ancestor-worshipper? Well, I want as many progeny as possible to support me after I'm dead, and if my kids become gay, that's less progeny for me.
The point is, people who want someone to hate are going to find someone to hate, and an excuse to do so. Because our culture has a lot of Christian influence, right now those people are going to identify themselves as "Christians" and hear the things from Christianity that they want to hear. But
Now, if by "gay-basher" you mean someone who thinks homosexuality is a perversion and morally wrong, I have to disagree. There are a lot of evil things in this world, of which homosexuality is certainly not the worst. Because we don't live in a Christian society, we don't encode all our moral standards into laws -- I haven't seen anyone thrown in jail for adultery in my lifetime, for instance, although I don't hesitate to call it wrong. Christians should be "the salt of the Earth." What was the main use of salt when Jesus said that? It was used to preserve things, to keep them from rotting. I ought to do what I can to encourage people chose fidelity over adultery, honesty over lies, love over selfishness, and purity over sexual immorality (while working to make all those choices myself as well). Sometimes that means making laws, such as making murder, perjury, and theft illegal, and punishing those who do them: sometimes not, as in the case of adultery and homosexuality.
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
You are not reading what I am writing. It is established in common law and written law in the United States that if I walk into a Best Buy, and a guy in a Best Buy shirt and nametag sells me a TV for $5, rings it up and everything, I have a valid contract with Best Buy to buy that TV for $5 because I have a reasonable expectation that the guy is a legal authorized Best Buy employee. I don't have to return the TV. This is called the Doctrine of Apparent Authority.
Contrast this with my buying a TV from a guy in a trenchcoat and ski mask from a van parked near the loading dock of the Best Buy. In a situation like that, what you have said will apply.
Basically, while recieving stolen property gives no consideration in general, regardless of knowledge, there is an exception involving a transaction with a business where I, as a customer, have every reason to expect the transaction to be valid.
"America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
but....what if what you're poking is already septic?
All of this evidence is nice, but it still doesn't fully absolve IBM of a contract dispute, which SCO may have enough room to get a small victory. With all of the morons out there (as evidenced by the rise in SCOX), they will take that small victory to mean that SCO has overcome the GPL and owns Linux, they will believe the FUD. Wall Street will pony up more legal cash. The water will get muddy. And who knows what will happen. SCO is like Saddam, until he is dead or captured, he is still a threat.
If you were a cannibal, would you eat Darl McBrides brains?
Louis XIV(14) was known as the Sun King for his extreme power and unchallenged rule. Louis XVI(16) was beheaded by a mob.
And their officers will be prosecuted... when?
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
Not really, SCO's claims (against IBM) are two fold:
.
1) SCO claims that IBM agreed that anything they (IBM) created for inclusion in a UNIX system would "naturally" have its copyright vested directly back to the SCO code base because without that code base nobody would have ever been able to envision the new work. (That is, that when IBM invented JFS, they could only do so in the context of having been under the largess of information [trade secrets etc] provided by the UNIX source.)
2) That IBM willfully ignored the encumberance created by item 1 by delivering that source to third parties (namely the Linux kernel maintainers and the GPL-using world at large.)
This is actually a contravention of the WHOLLY ORIGINAL nature of the work done by IBM. The claim is based on the idea that since IBM knew certian "trade secrets" and such via access to the soruce code, there could never be a "blank editor" secenrio.
That is refuted by the evidence of "clean room" procedures and so on.
=== At this point everying SCO claims of IBM is finished, but... ===
Where you are missing the point, and where the "coppied source" stuff is comming from, is that SCO is making a lot of colateral claims in the press (court of public opinion) based on the idea that "someone, but we aren't going to say it was IBM nudge-nudge-wink-wink" copied a bunch of their (SCO's) code into linux at some point, but we (SCO) cannot say who, what, or when such acts took place."
In their wacked-out legal theory, that completely unsubstanciated claim has similarly removed the "blank editor" nature of each and every person who has ever seen the Linux source code, and therefore there has never been, and can never be, a WHOLLY ORIGINAL contribution to the linux kernel. Further, since it is now impossible to have a WHOLLY ORIGINAL contribution, it must be furhter impossible for any person to have made a contribution to the work "significant enough" for them to retain any rights to their work. Under this legal theory, SCO's provanance is so strong that they are the sole holder of any copyright interests and therefore they can ignore the GPL where it was attached to other peoples code.
The argument is patently (no pun 8-) absurd for several reasons, not the least of which is the complete lack of anything aproaching "evidence" of any such code, let alone enough to warrent strippig 100% of the Linux contributors of 100% of their rights.
IF SCO *COULD* prove that 100% strippage (or lets say 99.9%) then they didn't violate the GPL because there was no MEANINGFULLY ORIGINAL work done by any party other than themselves (or their predecessors in interest).
The INSTANT that there is *ANY* MEANINGFUL ORIGINAL WORK in the Linux kernel not 100% indebited to SCO code, then SCO *DID* release their (whatever) percent work under the GPL by engaging in that PROVEN distribution of the Liunux kernel from their own site with the terms
Further, if they *DO* in fact own-by-provanance 100% of the Linux kernel then it is *IMPOSSIBLE* for them not to have NOT KNOWN this, since overriding interest of that scope (near 100% is, in theory, hard to miss 8-) would, by definition, been obvious at a glance. So with thay obvious ownership leaking from every line of code, they *STILL* provably distributed the code more than once with the GPL as the governing provenance.
In any case, their act of provanance is irretreivable unless the GPL is totally anathma to legal theory (it isn't) and therefore void.
If it (the GPL) *WERE*, however, anathma to legal theory, then every other GPL distribution SCO made (Samba etc), and is making today even though they alledge to know the licence they have is invalid, MUST then be a knowing and willful violation of copyright.
They (SCO) has essentially argued themselves into a self-contradictory and otherwise nonsensical legal corner.
Fortunately (for them), they have only done this in the court of public opinion. Were they to (when they) present this to a legal court they will enter into a world of hurt, because it is provably crap.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Tell your buddys to not to forget to leave me out of the next lawsuit. I am sure you will get an A in your How to Make Good PR class at UVSU. Now go back to getting Daryl and the boys Krispy Kreams and filling up thier cars at the Happy Clown...
The little boy sitting in a chair while all sorts of narration is flown past you?
Totally tripped out ad. I like it.
This ad shows me that IBM is going balls out with Linux. SCO is toast and IBM knows it. This ad is poking sticks at the (sco)monkeys.
Ads like this are going to make people start asking questions.
IBM is planting the seeds and we have to water the fields now..
Oh yeah, fsck SCO.
I feel no remose for the kid punces the 800lb gorilla in the face, and then claims to be the victm when he gets his ass kicked.
Gorillas are friendly creatures and are not mean, stop stereotyping gorillas, end gorilla discrimination NOW! IBM is no gorilla, they are more like a pack of hyenas.
> You just said that you have no personal experience for that belief other than a prejudice against Christianity that you've received from popular culture.
Hold on, buckaroo, I said no such thing. I was born Methodist, but wasn't much into it & didn't care about religion. When I was in HS through most of College, I was a born-again Christian -- baptism and all that happy shit. I have plenty of experience with many forms of Christianity -- I used to "church hop." Me & my friend would find different churches to go to, especially revivals, as they're fun and you get a better in-depth look at the sect.
I didn't gain my total dislike for religion until the last few years, partially because of the type of people I describe. I'm not gay, but I've met enough homophobes (as opposed to those just off the street) in church to realize it's much more prevalent in churchgoers.
Also, I certainly take very few cues from popular culture, thank you. I generally dislike "popular culture," of which (in the U.S., not the world -- that goes to Islam) Christianity is a part. Popular means "lots of people do it" and in the U.S., Christianity is more "popular" than any other religion (or possibly lack of one).
> There are a lot of evil things in this world, of which homosexuality is certainly not the worst.
This reaks of bias. I don't want to put words in your mouth (as you did to me) but the essence of this statement is that "homosexuality is evil, but not the most evil." Who the heck are you to say that it is evil? Because a book written by illiterate nomads, thousands of years ago, said it's bad.
> "For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen."
This has no bearing on the conversation, so feel free to ignore it, but everyone feels hate at some point in their life. So that means they cannot love God and will therefore suffer in hell (barring true repentance, of course) for eternity. That doesn't make much sense coming from the NT "loving god."
The Bible has good ideas and is a good book (pun, yeah), but there are too many ways to interpret wildly different things from it. Being a book written to save your soul, it certainly isn't organized or succinct well enough at all.
"These companies accused of Fraud..."
heh...I read that as "These companies accused of Freud..." (close, but no cigar) oh, well.. By the way, who prosecuted Keating?
What?
Fair enough -- I'm sorry that I misunderstood you.
BTB, you still haven't described exactly what you mean by 'homophobe' and 'gay basher' yet, so I don't know if you actually mean:
Hmm, a book written by illiterate nomads, huh? =) Anyway, I don't know what you mean by 'bias'. Yes, I think that homosexuality is morally wrong, on the authority of sources I trust. I don't feel too confident arguing about it, because I don't have any experience with it -- never done it, never talked to anyone who does it; I know that I have a relatively uninformed opinion. There are other issues -- like pornography, abortion, and so on that I am more confident to talk about. Furthermore, like it or not, I'm a product of our culture -- a culture which rates 'kindness' as one of the highest virtues, and 'cruelty' as one of the worst vices. Since homosexuality doesn't visibly hurt anybody, it's hard for me to be really upset at people who do it.
Is authority bad? Depends. We take all kinds of stuff on authority: from quantum physics to the situation in the Middle East. You always have to check the authority to see how trustworthy it is, and give it the appropriate amount of confidence. I've found the Bible worthy of my confidence. If you haven't, I wouldn't expect you place any trust in it.
There are lots of books written by lots of people. If the Bible were just 'a book written by illiterate nomads', why has it lasted so long, and had so much influence? Islam survives because it has a lot of the truth (surprise, a lot of it's copied from the Bible). Gnosticism didn't. =)
Well, barring true repentance, yes -- not just for hate, but for lots of things. I don't know you personally, but I'm guilty of acting in un-loving ways and causing pain to people around me, probably every single day, by the choices I make. If God is trying to create a paradise without suffering, why would he let me in as I am? Wouldn't I mar it with my selfishness within a week? The choice God gives people is simple: "Be holy as I am holy," or "Depart from me, ye evildoers."
The vital point you're missing is that God is working, and doing everything He can, to bring us to true repentance. Anyone who ends up in Hell will have absolutely no excuse -- God gave him every opportunity: He not only left all His glory to walk in our shoes, to be humiliated and tortured to death; but he continues to seek and pursue us.
That's what I've seen and experienced, anyway; I'm satisfied that God is Love.
Out of curiosity, what turned you off to Christianity? Why were you interested in it before, and what changed?
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
Christians argue that they aren't anyone to say homosexuality is evil. Read that sentence again, and realize that it stems from the fundamental assumption that God does not exist, and that the Bible is not the word of God.
I've learned from my years of being an atheist never to go up against God. You can say all you want; what He says holds a lot more water.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
The most 'offensive" anti-gay rally I saw was television clips from an aids rally. There were signs saying "God hates fags," and "AIDS: You Asked For It." Even these guys aren't saying gays should have their right to life taken away by men. Furthermore, there really aren't that many people out there that think homosexuals should be killed. And I live in Texas.
I'm not going to lie and say it's the majority, but I'd be willing to put every dollar I own down on the bet that of the gay-bashers, a large majority of them are Christian and of them, most are anti-gay simply because the church tells them it's wrong, so they assume with all fervor that the church is right.
The Church does not save Christians, Jesus does. If you assume for a moment that God exists and that homosexuality is a perversion and a sin, then obviously Christians are going to think that homosexuals are living sinful lives. However, they also contend that everyone else is, and it's only through the forgivenenss of Christ that we can be given a new "start."
Please note, this isn't a post against christianity in general, just Christian gay-bashers.
I think you're attacking Christianity in general. Just like people who attack abortion clinic bombers. The idea that homosexuals should be denied fundamental human rights is not a commonly accepted one; the idea that homosexuality is sin is. The idea that bashers who believe that gays should be "round up and shot" who profess to be Christian are a large enough population that they need to be publicly addressed and shown to be wrong indicates some sort of fear that their ideas are somehow accepted.
Hence, I'm forced to conclude that while you may not admit it, it's Christianity's assertian that homosexuality is evil that you really don't like.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
[/embarrassed-public-sigh 8-)]
I am supprised no AC jumped on me for that one... 8-)
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
I think the point was that any reasonable person would know that Best Buy isn't going to sell you a TV for $5 (unless it's part of a special deal to get you to buy other stuff).
That said, if we change the $5 to something not obviously absurd like $100, the analogy holds. Certainly, SCO doesn't have any case for asserting that its Linux work was obviously unauthorized.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Okay, I'll accept that. =)
*grumble* Consider it a holdover from a business law class in which all the examples were that extreme because the prof wanted to make some sort of point (what? I don't have any idea.)
"America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
> it's Christianity's assertian that homosexuality is evil that you really don't like
:)
Geez, if you wanted me to be concise, yeah, but where's the fun in that?
Yes, that assertion is partly what I don't like, but some people take it too far. The people who get on TV or pulpit and say that gays should stop being gay to save their souls are much more offensive to me than a statement in a very old book.
I'm not attacking Christianity in the whole, although I recognize that it sounds that way. But take those that are Christian and DON'T have a problem with (or at least aren't outspoken about) homosexuality. I have no problem with most of them. It's the lunatic fanatics that irk me.
> the idea that homosexuality is sin is
Basically, that's the most important point. Simply calling something evil does not make it so, regardless how many people believe it is or is not. I don't believe for a second that being homosexual is evil.
Most people who are gay don't CHOOSE to be, they were born that way (that's arguable I think, but it's how I feel). That means their only choices are: Live in "sin," be alone and unhappy, or be with someone you don't want to be with and live unhappily. What if the Bible said that those with diabetes were sinful? They can't just say "okay, I decide I don't want Diabetes, so I can get to heaven." It would be nice, but it doesn't work that way. It is a Bad Thing, IMO, to call someone a sinner over something they have little control (as I see it).
> Is there anything in the US legal system that is
> preventing US kernel maintainer from suing SCO?
Yeah. You have to be made of money to sue a corporation these days.
--
-JC
> Hmm, a book written by illiterate nomads, huh? =)
;)
Yeah, I can troll from time to time
> you still haven't described exactly what you mean by 'homophobe' and 'gay basher' yet
All of the above. If someone thinks that there is some (other than preference) difference between gays & straights, they are (IMO, of course) mistaken. If they accept that they can be treated differently, they are not showing love for their brothers. I DO realize that it makes some people uneasy -- so just don't bring it up. But don't hate just because you (not you personally) don't understand or because a random statement makes you think it's bad. Have a reason, not a book.
> I think that homosexuality is morally wrong, on the authority of sources I trust
What is that source? The Bible? Obviously I can't argue faith, it's a losing battle. Which is a big problem to me. Many peoples' beliefs are based solely on the words of a book. Problem with complete faith is that there is no reasoning involved. There is no way to argue against it, so they feel like they've "won" once they invoke scripture and I can't argue it -- there's nothing TO argue.
> If the Bible were just 'a book written by illiterate nomads', why has it lasted so long, and had so much influence?
Because it makes people feel good. Like they have a purpose. Also, you mention Islam. Well, there are MANY MANY more Muslims in the world than Christians, so does that mean they are wrong? Jews, Muslims, Christians, Atheists can't all be right, so I have no reason to believe yours is the "correct" religion. Just because something is around for a long time does not make it correct or even give it authority. I have other reasons, but if I list them it'll be considered flamebait, and probably rightfully so.
> Islam survives because it has a lot of the truth (surprise, a lot of it's copied from the Bible).
Umm... actually, they were both copied from similar sources. Your phrasing implies that after Christianity was around, Islam just popped up and copied their good ideas. That is absolutely untrue.
> I'm guilty of acting in un-loving ways and causing pain to people around me
Thanks for not assuming, but you would be correct if you did. I don't know if I am capable of love; it seems that no one has ever loved me. The Bible teaches to love thy neighbor, but I have never been on the receiving end of that. Maybe my spite for humanity in general has caused my dislike of religion, but either way, it is still my opinion.
> Out of curiosity, what turned you off to Christianity? Why were you interested in it before, and what changed?
In less honest moments, I will claim that it was the jerks and fanatics that turned me off, but it has more (everything?) to do with myself.
I was depressed and just for the heck of it, I went to a revival with a friend of mine. I enjoyed it and felt pretty good for a while, so I stuck with it.
Life was pretty crappy to start with and while I was going to church it was in an upswing for a short while. Then it got much, much, worse. I prayed asking for guidance, assistance, anything to give me some indication I wasn't wasting my time being alive. It never came, and still has not. I don't feel the glory of God, I don't feel like he is protecting or watching me. I felt alone, hurt, and betrayed by the one who claimed he was here to help us all. You might say I am an atheist because I'm pissed off at God for being a dick to me. You might be right.
Basically, I don't believe in Hell because I think I'm already there.
Remember where all this "negative news" is. It's in Groklaw instead of the Times or WSJ. The public is not reading any of this, so they're only hearing the SCO side of it.
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
Christians don't believe that homosexuals could save their souls by ceasing to be gay. There's only one way to save one's soul, according to the Bible--you must accept Christ as your savior.
Basically, that's the most important point. Simply calling something evil does not make it so, regardless how many people believe it is or is not.
Christians don't think so. Christians think that by God calling it evil, it is so. If you suppose for a second that a God exists, then it would make sense that the same entity that creates humanity can also create the laws by which humanity should abide by. He doesn't even force you to follow them, either.
Most people who are gay don't CHOOSE to be, they were born that way (that's arguable I think, but it's how I feel).
I don't think they make an active choice, but I definately think that they aren't born homosexual. There are many homosexuals that convert to Christianity. Upon doing so, at the very least some of them cease to be homosexuals. If homosexuality is a genetic trait, then there needs to be some sort of omnipotent entity capable of changing the DNA of a live creature. As an atheist, I do not believe this.
Religious conversion often corrects numerous psycological disorders. No one will argue that pedophilia, for example, is such a disorder. Hence, I hold the belief that homosexuality is an aquired psychological condition. Furthermore, the idea of there existing some gene that determines if the carrier will go on to sexually lust for the same sex seems as unlikely as there being a gene that deactivates one's reproductive system--i.e. evolution would never let such genes survive to reproduce, for obvious reasons.
That means their only choices are: Live in "sin," be alone and unhappy,
That's pretty much what Christians think of me, as well.
What if the Bible said that those with diabetes were sinful?
Oddly enough, type 2 diabetes is entirely avoidable, and even curable with a proper diet.
They can't just say "okay, I decide I don't want Diabetes, so I can get to heaven." It would be nice, but it doesn't work that way.
No, it does not. There's only one way to get to heaven, according to Christians, and it isn't cessation of sin.
It is a Bad Thing, IMO, to call someone a sinner over something they have little control (as I see it).
Again, the assumption that the Bible is untrue. Furthermore, without Christ, Christians assert that homosexuals would be sinners in need of forgiveness even if they weren't homosexuals.
If you're going to bash something, it would be prudent to understand what you're bashing. Homosexuality isn't something that Christians view as a sin "just 'cause." It is something that God tells them is as sin. Furthermore, the idea that homosexuality is the only sin that homosexuals partake in is wrong. You may not think that you said that, but you did say "gays should stop being gay to save their souls" with reference to "Christian gay bashers."
The idea that homosexuality is a gene is about as absurd as the idea that pedophilia is a gene. Sexuality is something that is defined mostly by our upbringing, even for heterosexuals. Notice how larger women used to be considered more attractive, and now "big butts" are making a comeback. In parts of Africa, the largest women are considered the most attractive, because size indicates wealth.
I'm not saying homosexuality is Wrong, either. I just think it's a psycological condition. Do you really think that "they gay gene" would survive to give it's traits to it's offspring? Do you really think that who we are attracted to is in our genes at all? I mean, think about it. Who we think is attractive is so clearly defined by our upbringing that I cannot even concieve that we're born with dormant genes that activate at puberty that control our sexual attraction.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Bít, zabít, jen proto, ze su liska!
Furthermore, is the same section smaller with pedophiles? Necrophiles? Is the section always smaller? Psycological conditions often have very real physical effects, as well. Such studies are utterly inconclusive.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Bít, zabít, jen proto, ze su liska!
See, there are homosexuals that convert to Christianity (probably Islam as well) and are "cured." I wonder if their INAH3 grows when this happens. It doesn't seem to make any sense without God existing?
I don't see how Lordosis implies trying to mate with other males--I mean, it's the same movement, right? Or is it...to put it nicely...a back condition caused by being "on the bottom?"
I have known heterosexual men that seem to exude a more femenine attitude. Perhaps they have similar physical traits.
This is begging more questions than I began with.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Bít, zabít, jen proto, ze su liska!
To be fair, of all the miracles that religious folks attribute to their deities, INAH3 growing would be one of the more believable ones. Drug addicts have entirely different brain chemistry than non-addicts. In fact, their brains often (depending on the drug) never return to normal. Conversion to both Christianity and Islam cure them pretty consistently. Although INAH3 doesn't change after birth, addicted brains don't either.
Suppressing chemical addiction because of compelling moral belief structures would have not only harmful mental effects, but physical ones as well. Evidence shows this not to be the case. This could be apples and oranges, though (IANABS).
Also, what about bisexuals? There are homosexuals also that don't exhibit femenine traits. I'll agree with you that many homosexuals are born with their orientation dormant, but there are still many others that it would seem do suffer from psycological trauma from childhood.
My case seems to slightly improve itself with lesbians. Most lesbians that go to see psycologists at least seem to report childhood abuse. The numbers increase with bisexual women.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Bít, zabít, jen proto, ze su liska!