Slashdot Mirror
McBride's New Open Letter on Copyrights
dtfinch writes "An open letter was posted today by Darl McBride, where he restates his claim that the GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, patent laws, copyright laws, and the DMCA. Mostly he just builds up a false image of the Free Software Foundation and open source supporters claiming that they have no respect for intellectual property and believe copyrights should be eliminated, then attacks that image, AKA the straw man attack. Nothing we haven't seen before."
Right here...
Also there is some other SCO news on the front page.
Personally I can't get past how SCO reckons they can make the GPL invalid and then face all the angry kernel developers suing them for illegally distributing their copyrighted works....
If copyright didn't exist, the GPL could not exist -- everything would be public domain, and companies could release binary-only software.
I seriously doubt that RedHat has interest in blowing away copyright.
Most of this letter really is a straw man attack. It's not worth my time to punch holes in all of Darl's claims, but among other flaws:
(A) Darl claims that the GPL violates the Constitution and a number of other things. All "evidence", weak as it is, deals entirely with his claims about the motivations of several groups of people that happen to use the GPL. It has nothing to do with the GPL itself. This is a logical fallacy, on the order of saying "Bob owns a gun and Bob owns a big truck, so anyone owning a gun uses an excessive amount of gas".
(B) It's pretty clear that RH doesn't want to eliminate copyrights. Software patents are a significant disaster -- they are in a few company's corporate interests, but you will be very hard-pressed to find *any* engineer that supports them.
(C) McBride claimed that the GPL is invalid. Again. I'm wondering how he intends to argue that SCO didn't massively infringe copyrights of thousands of parties by then distributing Linux. Again. Same old, same old.
(D) McBride lies, and is happy to deliberately mislead people. We have seen this over and over and over in his claims and releases for almost a year now. It would be more of a surprise to find that he's being honest than that he's lying again.
May we never see th
Exactly. The argument boils down to "The GPL is unconstitutional because the people who wrote it don't like some current laws."
Of course, not liking current laws is also constitutionally protected in the USA, as is the right to voice ones opinions on the matter.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
You should probably read the MAI v. Peak case from the 9th Circuit. Although it's a stupid decision, and there are indications that it's incorrect, it does significantly limit the application of 117. It gets worse if you read the Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse case that followed it.
Nevertheless, there is little need in the US for EULAs.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
So, anyone have the original html (before sco stripped out that info)?
http://www.gr oklaw.net/article.php?sto ry=20031204195915515
"But here is the odd part: SCO's lawyers didn't write this manifesto and neither did Darl, judging by the headers on the Word file. Yes, thanks to Microsoft's utter disregard for user privacy, we know who actually wrote this document, or at least whose computer was used. You see, Microsoft preserves such info as metadata, little pieces of info about you in the headers of each document you write in Word. Someone on Yahoo took a look at the document's Properties, and the document records that it was written by Kevin McBride and Dean Zimmerman, who is apparently a tech writer."
IAALS.
Take a look at this document (note: it's a PDF file). It's written in legalese, but if you read between the lines, it shows what happens when a lawyer loses patience. Basically, IBM's law firm can't call SCO a bunch of liars, cheats, four-flushers and shysters in a court document, but this document sure makes it sound like they wish they could. Highly entertaining, and highly recommended.
Someone you trust is one of us.
I'd say the funny part about the author's rants and raves about Red Hat are contradicted in the link provided:
Red Hat has aggressively lobbied Congress to eliminate software patents and copyrights.
However, after visiting the site, the only word used is "patent," the only occurance of "copyright" is at the bottom of the page claiming that it's a © of Redhat.
No, it's only for investors.
They couldn't care less about the "Linux license" pocket money. And as it is, all SCO needs is a PR and law departments, so if other employees go away, that would only be convenient. And somehow I don't see him caring the slight bit about what his mom thinks of SCO business practices, either...
They've already entered several counterclaims. No sense having two trials when one will suffice, right? IBM has claimed Breach of Contract, Lanham Act Violation, Unfair Competition, Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations, Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices, Breach of GNU General Public License, Promissory Estoppel (in regards to the GPL) Copyright Infringement, four counts of Patent Infringement, and is seeking a Declaratory Judgment. Should be enough to bury SCO, eh?
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Indeed. That's why it was published on Dec 4th... one day before Dec 5th when the judge has scheduled oral arguements the 3 motions to compel discovery (2 by IBM against SCO and 1 by SCO against IBM).
I'm not going to make predictions about what the judge will say or do tommorrow... but I will predict that this diversionary tactic doesn't prevent coverage of whatever the judge says.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
check this out (from groklaw):
[...]
But here is the odd part: SCO's lawyers didn't write this manifesto and neither did Darl, judging by the headers on the Word file. Yes, thanks to Microsoft's utter disregard for user privacy, we know who actually wrote this document, or at least whose computer was used. You see, Microsoft preserves such info as metadata, little pieces of info about you in the headers of each document you write in Word. Someone on Yahoo took a look at the document's Properties, and the document records that it was written by Kevin McBride and Dean Zimmerman, who is apparently a tech writer.
[...]
I don't get it. How can the GPL be unconstitutional ?
The basic arguement seem to be that the constitution states the purpose of copyright is the "promote progress of science..." AND the supreme court recently wrote "motive of profit is the engine that ensures progress of science".
There's certainly no disputing that the constitution really does have that, and that the court really did write such an opinon recently.
They claim the GPL is designed to destroy the profit motive. Suspecd disbelief for a moment and ignore the scant profit Redhat made a couple times.
So, if you put these three things together, you get:
I personally suspect there are a dozen reasons why this argument is bad. But that is, as nearly as I can tell from the letter, the basic arguement.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
>the lawyers wrote it...
:)
IAAL. I can assure you that the PR people wrote it with a smattering of legalese dusted on top. The "arguments" are incoherent, the "authorities" are off the point while the rant at the outset about copy-left, etc. is completely irrelevant.
I must admit to admiring the ability to spout this rubbish with a straight face.
While saying that Red Hat or the community in general are for the elimination of copyrights, it should be noted that originally RMS was for their elimination, and that the GNU GPL was seen more of a pragmatic revolutionary tool that would be unncessary once the elimination of copyrights was attained at least in the software domain.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
According an article at groklaw, someone analyzed the headers in the Word document that was the source of the letter, and it was written by Kevin McBride and Dean Zimmerman, technical writers.
1 95915515
See http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031204
If GPL is not valid:
-
SCO has been releasing Linux illegally
else:- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
Noone gets any satisfaction with modding ACs down.
Lets respond to the troll.
Why give away the programs? So the programmers can make money by selling support and consultancy services. Funnily enough, they often found companies of their own to do this.
In Eldred, they didn't rule in favour of SCO's opinion, they ruled in favour of Ashcrofts line. It had nothing to do with SCOs opinion. And while we disagree with the DMCA, it protects Linux hippies from companies like SCO too.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon