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."
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."
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.