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Also, if the DMCA is ever repealed, freakin' party of the century at my place!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

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.)