Bob Young's Open Letter to SCO/Darl McBride

Oskie-wee-wee writes "Infoworld is carrying a story about Bob Young (Red Hat, Lulu, Classy Formal Wear, Hamilton Tiger-Cats, etc.) and his open letter to SCO and Darl McBride - in response to Darl's open letter 'defending, in one breath, the SCO suit, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and the Supreme Court Decision in the Eldred vs. Ashcroft case.'"

Comments

I had this idea

[Apreche]

I know it's not possible or probable, but I came up with this great idea today. The ultimate scenario.

Linus Torvalds subpoenas Darl McBride under the DMCA for violating the GPL. This results in a repeal of the DMCA in the supreme court.

I know it's just a dream, but its nice to think it could happen.

Also, if the DMCA is ever repealed, freakin' party of the century at my place!

Re:I had this idea

[Richardsonke1]

The real text, if you want it:

"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so
mindboggingly useful [the bablefish] could have evolved purely by chance that some
thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the
non-existence of God.
"The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I
exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am
nothing.'
"`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It
could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore,
by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
"`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly
vanished in a puff of logic.
"`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove
that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Quite frankly, his letter is rather weak.

[inflex]

I would have expected better to be honest. Instead the letter seems to drift about, morphing from rhetorics to tongue-in-cheek. Perhaps it's been specifically designed to work with Darl's psych?

Will the Retribution Be Just enough ....

[leoaugust]

All you are doing is causing your audience to educate themselves. Once everyone understands how wrong you are your stock price will suffer. Hmmm, suddenly when I think about it - you might in fact be doing us all a favor.

After all is said and done, all that may happen is that SCO's stock price may suffer ? Really, is this Just enough ? Will Justice have been served after all the mayhem that has been created ?

Borrowing from Friedman in NYTimes

... the image that comes to mind is that famous scene in the movie "The Shining" where Jack Nicholson, playing a crazed author, tries to kill his wife, played by Shelley Duvall, who's hiding in the bathroom. As Ms. Duvall cowers behind the locked bathroom door, Mr. Nicholson takes an ax, smashes it through the door, and with a look of cheery madness peers through the splintered wood and announces, "Heeeere's Johnny."

And the analogy would be that after all this Johnny's book doesn't sell well in the market. Other than that his life goes on ....

I am all for a little poetic justice .... How about adopting a little from What The Onion had in store for the Gigli Stars and dish it out to Darl, SCO, and all the members in their Axis ....

To quote from the Onion Story .... Focus groups at advance screenings for Gigli, a romantic comedy starring Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez set to open nationwide July 30, have demanded a new ending in which both stars die "in as brutal a manner as possible," sources at Sony Pictures said Tuesday.

Re:Umm, not everyone

[black mariah]

IP isn't there to benefit the community, it's their to benefit the person that came up with whatever the IP happens to be.

why pay any attention to SCO?

[Neuroelectronic]

like in the article, SCO has been dis-proven over and over again. the Press is paying to much attention to this case (among other things). by now isn't it apparent by now that SCO is simply a *industry status probe* by microsoft? consider it a spectrum probe launched by the MSS Enterprise. Although, everywhere it scans, it costs resources to the enemy, the open source community. =]

Re:why pay any attention to SCO?

[hdparm]

Microsoft recently extended full protection to its users, should they be sued for using Windows. Why are the large vendors of the Linux community such as IBM, Redhat, and SuSe being so niggardly?

Funny you'd asked this question without hinting at obvious answer - perhaps because at Microsoft they know exactly what UNIX algorhytms have they used in NT kernel? Whole fucking TCP stack used to be derived of BSD code. Or maybe becuase this is one more way to spread FUD?

Linux kernel have had so many contributors over 10+ years that it is virtually impossible to have a compact group that would know every bit of kernel code. In case there is an infringment (which I really doubt, especially deliberate one), all Darl ought to say is where the code is and offending kernel tree will be patched and distributed in no time.

Somehow, as this saga unfolds, I can't see this happening. Probably because there is nothing to show. And with every day passing by, I am more and more convinced that all this crap is initiated by Microsoft and that Bob Young is, as he usually is, right - there is only one entity that benefited from SCO case so far - Microsoft. And a pockets of few SCO executives.

Re:DMCA

[mabhatter654]

I understand Darl's reasoning that the 1976 copyright act make it easier for "mass media" to pump out copyrighted content without needing to be hastled by "properly" registering it as "protected" content and by changing the rules for software to allow "binary only" protection...perfect for the "tycoons" that sprouted up that quickly "protected" stuff they initially plagurized or "dumpster" dived for.

On the other hand, we wouldn't have any corporations or news [i.e. no /.!] on the internet WITHOUT those restrictions being eased...otherwise web content would have to be registered BEFORE POSTING online to have copyright protection, hence making online news and such useless [or maybe not a bad thing if it meant getting rid of rubbish!] But in many ways, the 1976 act actually HURTS [his wet dreams of] copyright by diluting the pool of "protected" stuff by assuming every little thing is protected. On the other hand, its the very same act that gives the GPL it's teeth!!! It removed the need equally for ANYONE to have to register for basic protections...that means you and I can use our rights to add GPL just like he can use his rights to "hide" his code as "trade secret" and protect his webpages. Like a typical American CEO, he wants the protections, Darl just doesn't like than EVERYBODY ELSE has them too! Because then HIS little bits of code don't amout to squat...because the sea is flooded right now!!! GPL is intened to BREAK THE SYSTEM! Get it! Nobody can constitutionally stop the authors from "sharing" their rights in the manor of the GPL...and now that the public is catching on, Why would they want to pay for stuff when other people are giving it away for "other reasons".

Like you, I think a DMCA violation for an OSS program would be sweet irony!!! What Darl and other miss with the DMCA is that technology has progressed to grow and flourish without strict copyrights because the govt has got it's hand out of "registering" every little thing. The "joke" to mention to the media companies is that without the 1976 act to ease the registration process, none of them would need DMCA because they would not have businesses to begin with...90%+ of the internet would be PD under the old rules...and impossible to track or register anything after the fact. But it's hard to make the argument to congress that MILLIONS of people are benifiting from FREE stuff while a few thousand are suffering losing great amount of "federal benifit" money. Lessing tried to make that argument in court, but they "copped out" rather than draw a line in the sand.

SCO goals

[js7a]

SCO's only product is media spin

That's a simplistic view that ignores what SCO really wants.

They are not intentionally trying to pump-and-dump, although they will surely be very vulnerable to suits charging such intentions within half a month.

The truth is that the head executives at SCO really believed that there was some part of SysV inside Linux, and you can tell by the malloc() and other examples that they were showing to the analysts under nondisclosure. They believed it so much that they didn't want to even consider the possibility that they were wrong, and the executives weren't technical enough to tell that their "evidence" was faulty.

What they've always really wanted is to get a license fee from each copy of Linux in any commercial use. That's why they've resisted explaining exactly which code they consider infringing, because they were afraid Linus would order it replaced right away (which of course he would, if there was any.)

Seriously

[BuckaBooBob]

SCO is busy trying to keep "Infringing" code away from public eyes.. What for? if they own the rights to it then big deal.. No one can copy it anyway. But if some how they get away with this what Will happen? How could a judge let SCO get away with it..

I find it inconciveable that they will be able to hide thier "Infringed" code forever.. The second its Identified it will be cleaned and SCO will no-longer have any claim for licence fee's.

For some odd reason if sco is able to keep it a secret then who on earth will police SCO from charging thier licence fee's once enough changes have been made that thier code is removed?

The real message of this open letter....

[Angostura]

Is "please visit Lulu.com".

Don't get me wrong, he is a splendid, guy, and lulu is spendid site. But what he has discovered here is a splendid way to get free advertising for his new venture.