Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
isn't this old news???
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
Finally, some soundbites MSNBC can run with! (oh, well maybe FOXNEWS?)
An open letter to Bob Young, re: your open letter to Darl McBride:
Never argue with a fool, you'll be brought down to his level and he'll beat you with experience.
P.S. don't feed the trolls, Bob, really.
It's getting to where any moron can write an "open letter to SCO" and get on Slashdot's frontpage.
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Also, if the DMCA is ever repealed, freakin' party of the century at my place!
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
An open letter from Linus or Stallman, or the heads of IBM or whatever make sense since they're directly involved.
So what is the deal with Bob Young? Why is he involved with this? Is this how everyone get's attention now - write an open letter to Darl?
I didn't see much in the letter that was particularly informative, insightful or articulate.
I want to see someone really let loose with a civil suit suing SCO's pants off, a class action lawsuit, or even better a SEC criminal investigation.
These open letters to Darl just kind of make me yawn...
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?
It took about 30 seconds to load, so I'm posting the letter here:
Dear Darl,
Many smarter people than me have demolished your arguments around the idea that anyone has knowingly stolen any property from you. Yet you continue to refuse to tell anyone what it is that you claim has been stolen. So your arguments against others ring very hollow. It is like my claiming you broke into the trunk of my car and stole something from me. But then I refuse to tell anyone, the police or anyone else, what was stolen, or even allow anyone to look in the trunk of my car. Your strategy would be laughable if it were not costing everyone involved huge amounts and of time and effort to correct your errors and respond to your lawyers.
Secondly, no one is arguing against copyright. Everyone agrees Intellectual Property, from trademark law, to copyrights and patents, is a good thing.
Ok, so maybe Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation, the inventor of the GPL license, thinks it is not a good idea to copyright software. But even Richard thinks copyright has its place to enable authors to earn a living. Free markets are not so fragile that a new idea like the GPL can threaten them. The only thing that can threaten free markets in a democracy is fear. Fear can cause well-meaning governments to enact flawed legislation. The kind of legislation the DMCA represents. The DMCA is the equivalent of trying to stop break-and-entry of homes by making screwdrivers illegal. Breaking and entering should be illegal. Allowing honest citizens to own innocent tools that evildoers might use to break and enter must remain perfectly legal. It is the crook who should be sent to jail, not the tool nor the owner of the tool.
The Supreme Court case that you misrepresent in your latest open letter demonstrates the Justices think too much of a good thing may no longer be so good. The case you quote (Eldred vs Ashcroft) was accepted by the Supreme Court specifically because they wanted to consider whether copyright, enacted by the founding fathers with a term of 14 years, may be getting stretched a little too far at its current 95 years. The case was decided based on the Justices concluding that it was up to Congress, not the Supreme Court, to set the terms of copyright law. Groups like Creative Commons are working to fix in the marketplace the problems caused by recent expansions of copyright terms. But then you seem to have little respect for the marketplace.
The sad thing about your arguments is that you undermine them by running your company so badly. SCO's revenues from the sale of goods and services (not counting some very odd license "revenue") have fallen every quarter since you took over SCO. Corporate America does not illegally download anyone's property to save a few bucks. They purchase the best product and services available from the companies they trust the most. You and your team have proven to be incapable of producing good products, at least not as good as those from other suppliers. These self-serving "open letters" make SCO appear extremely untrustworthy. So you have violated both of the customer service rules you should be focused on honoring.
Darl, for the sake of your case in front of the courts, for the sake of your company's ability to win customers, for the sake of everyone's blood pressure, and to save yourself further personal embarrassment, you might want to be less vocal. 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.
Thanks, Bob.
Bob Young, CEO Lulu.com
It is paramount that the DMCA be given full force and effect, as envisioned by Congress. The judgment of our elected officials in Congress is the law of the land in the U.S. copyright arena, and should be respected as such. If allowed to work properly, we have no doubt that the DMCA will create a beneficial effect for the entire economy in digital technology development, similar to the benefits created by the 1976 Copyright Act.
...but considering SCO's only product is media spin, some high profile/intelligent people need to counter the bullshit they are pumping out. Else no matter how unintelligent the argument, it will eventually be seen as the truth.
"1984" was ment to be a warning, not a guidebook. You hear that Kim Jong-il!? BushCo?!
You've probably read all the standard SCO comments before, though.
Dear Linus,
I have always felt that Linux is a nice operating system (for hobbyists and
geeks), but there are some areas where it is seriously lacking, especially when
compared to its main competitor, Microsoft Windows.
* File sharing. Windows has long been superior when it comes to making large
amounts of files available to third parties. Even early versions of Windows
automatically detected and made available all directories thanks to the built in
NetBIOS-powered file sharing support. But Microsoft has realized that this
technology is inherently limited and has added even better file sharing support
to its Windows XP operating system. "Universal Plug an Play" will
make it possible to literally access any file, from any device! I think
universal file sharing support needs to be built into the Linux kernel soon.
* Intelligent agents. With innovations like Clippy, the talking paperclip
and Microsoft Bob, Microsoft has always tried to make life easier
for its customers. With Outlook and Outlook Express, Microsoft has built a
framework for developers to create even smarter agents. Especially popular
agents include "Sircam", which automatically asks the users' friends for advice
on files he is working on and the "Hybris" agent, which is a self-replicating
copy of a humorous take on "Snow-White and the Seven Dwarves" (the real story!).
Microsoft is working on expanding this P2P technology to its web servers. This
project is still in the beta stage, thus the name "Code Red". The next versions
will be called "Code Yellow" and "Code Green".
* Version numbers. Linux has real naming problems. What's the difference
between a 2.4.19 and a 2.2.17 kernel anyway? And what's with those odd and even
numbers? Microsoft has always had clear and sophisticated naming/versioning
policies. For example, Windows 95 was named Windows 95 because it was released
in 1995. Windows 98 was released three years later, and so on. Windows XP
brought a whole new "experience" to the user, therefore the name. I suggest that
the next Linux kernel releases be called Linux 03, Linux 04, Linux 04.5 (OSR1),
Linux 04.7B (OSR2 SP4 OEM), Linux 2005 and Linux VD (Valentine's Day edition).
Furthermore, remember how Microsoft named every upcoming version of Windows
after some Egyptian city? Cairo, Chicago and so on. I think that the development
kernels should be named after Spanish cities to celebrate Linux' Spanish
origins. Linux Milano or Linux Rome anyone?
* Multi-User Support. This has always been one of Microsoft's strong sides,
especially in the Windows 95/98 variants, where passwords were completely
unnecessary. Microsoft has made the right decision by not bothering the user
with a distinction between "normal" and "root" users too much -- practice has
shown that average users can be trusted to act responsibly and in full awareness
of the potential consequences of their actions. After all, if your operating
system doesn't trust you, why should you trust it? (To be fair, Linux is making
some progress here with the Lindows [lindows.com] distribution, where users are
always running as root.)
With Windows XP, Microsoft has again improved multi-user support. Not only
does Windows XP come with a large library of user pictures that are displayed on
the login screen, such as a guitar and a flower, it also has "quick user
change". This makes it possible to login as a different user with a simple
keyboard shortcut, and the good news is: programs from the old user keep running
in the background! Beat that, Linux!
* Programmability. Microsoft has always been known for making computer
machine power accessible to end users. The operating system comes with many
helpful tools such as VBScript, a programming language especially useful for
developing intelligent agents as mentioned above, and QBASIC, a truly innovative
"hacker" tool that makes it possible to
here is a mirror of the bbspot articlet mas.html
http://bbspot.com/News/2003/12/sco_chris
SCO Must Prove Existence Of
Santa Claus in Thirty Days
By Brian Briggs
Salt Lake City, UT - Supreme Court Judge Isaiah Moore ruled that SCO must show proof of Santa Claus in the next 30 days, or he will dismiss their lawsuit against all Christians and companies profiting from the Christmas holiday.
A new look for SCO CEO Kris Kringle (formerly named Darl McBride)
SCO, formerly known as Santa Cruz Operations, recently changed their name to Santa Claus Operations. This change was widely regarded as a move to improve their image after their controversial claims about Linux. Critics of the name change say it's just another fantasy created by SCO CEO Kris Kringle, formerly known as Darl McBride, to profit through litigation.
In a recent press release SCO said it would begin sending out invoices to anyone who celebrates or profits from Christmas in the next couple of weeks including corporations and individuals. A price list for SCO Christmas licenses which companies and individuals need to celebrate the holiday without violating SCO's intellectual property rights were released as well.
"Children can avoid penalties by sending 10% of their Christmas gifts to SCO," said Kringle.
Followers of the case consider the judge's decision a defeat for SCO, because they feel the company cannot prove the existence of Santa Claus.
Kringle was confident that SCO would prevail in the lawsuit. He said, "We have hundreds of e-mails addressed to Kris_Kringle@sco.com. Under Federal law it is illegal to route e-mail to the wrong location intentionally. This proves without a doubt that Santa Claus exists and he works at SCO."
Chief Counsel for the company Fred Gailey said he planned to print out these e-mails and place them in giant mailbags to dump on the judge's desk. "When the judge sees the number of e-mails we've received he will have to rule in our favor, or face breaking the hearts of his grandchildren."
Related News
Office 2003 Editions Compared
Notepad Rallies for Extension Name Change
Office Jesus Will Work Miracles for Food
"Christmas existed long before the existence of SCO," said VP of marketing for Giantco, Clayton Moneybags. "In fact I heard that at one point it was about celebrating the birth of Jesus."
SCO Vice president, Jesus Christ countered, "Don't you think we thought of that one too?"
On second thought...perhaps I should put the design on a kevlar vest as opposed to a t-shirt.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Bob Young is the FOUNDER and CEO of REDHAT...
You know...
The company SUEING SCO.
Maybe, just maybe, that is why what BOB YOUNG SAYS MATTERS.
Clues, they do a body good.
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
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 see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
Securities fraud is a criminal offence!
Darl, Put a sock in it!
Help fight continental drift.
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. =]
Because white collar crime results in so many jail sentences, right?
Steal $240 from a convenience store, and you'll get at least 5 years behind bars. Defraud investors of millions, and -- if you're an executive for Worldcom, Enron, or Fannie Mae -- you'll pay a fine and get on with your life.
Darl can't even spell properly. "The FSF and Red Hat believe that the progress of science is best advanced by eliminating the profit motive from software development and insuring free, unrestricted public access to software innovations." Insuring? I never knew the FSF was in the insurance business...sure hope he meant ensuring.
I guess I caught the meaning of the GPL and its reliance on US Copyright law when I first heard about the GPL, oh, in '87 or '88. The GPL absolutely *DEPENDS* on US Copyright law to exist as-is for it to have meaning, the basis of "I wrote this work and copyright lets me define what terms it can be used by".
What Bob Young is trying to defend is the right under copyright for someone to copyright a work, and define THEIR terms for how that copyrighted work is used and distributed.
What Darl is trying to impress is that there is only ONE way for Copyright to be interpreted and used (which seems only to be "Not the GPL").
Most of us on Slashdot AGREE that there is some basis for SOME justification and need for laws such as patents, trademarks and copyrights, and agree that the processes and systems used for and by these are being abused and warped like no one has seen before, solely because of corporate and IP lawyer greed, not because of any concern for the protections of real individual people.
(Maybe "The Matrix" really is trying to be a subtle wakeup call about how powerful we've allowed corporations to become, and what will happen if it continues, because this time there may not be a Teddy Roosevelt, Sherman Anti-trust Act and a judicial system willing to do the modern equivalent of "trust busting", because corporate america has provided the means for many of the people in the system to get where they are. It's not robots to fear, it is multinational corporations...)
GNU, Stallman, EFF, et al. are NOT arguing for abolition of IP laws, but for not allowing them to be bastardized beyond belief merely by, and for the sole benefits of, Corporate America.
Yes, I would also say that I defend the right of SCO to be able to make their lawsuit, as frivolous and without basis that I think it is. And I pray as much that it does not have the perverse outcomes like the OJ Simpson and latest Microsoft anti-trust cases had.
We all have probably decried about the US Government detaining people outside of the US, on a military installation, without telling them (or us) specifically why they are being detained, without releasing them after 72 hours, etc.
Yet SCO is trying to do the same thing with copyright. "You've cheated us! But we can't tell you exactly how you have, nor will we let you try to fix it beforehand."
It is like some little hot-headed little Napolean and his posse threatening to kick your ass because you did something that pissed him off (woke up? wore white pants after Labor Day? yawned w/o covering your mouth?), he won't tell you what it was that you did, and won't let you apologize for it, etc., because he *really* wants to kick your ass...
Oh, well...
Darl McBride: -1 Troll
Linus Torvalds: +1 Funny
Groklaw: +1 Insighful
Bob Young: -1 Redundant
Sorry Bob. You're on the good side, but you really contributed nothing.
The DMCA is the equivalent of trying to stop break-and-entry of homes by making screwdrivers illegal.
The DMCA wouldn't make screwdrivers illegal. It would just make it illegal for you to publish instructions on how to fabricate a screwdriver, locate the door, and insert the screwdriver.
It seems to me that he equates incentive to create with profit. Now, I'm not an idealist or anything and money is a good incentive but there are some of us who just want to advance the art/science. Can he not see that? Surely he must be aware of it. Perhaps he thinks the world is so materialistic that everyone would simply buy his argument.
Whenever I read his argument I imagine either:
1. Mr. Burns pulling his hair out, unable to comprehend this new "madness" of non-profit work.
2. Sauron, unable to imagine what the little geeks have in mind for Linux's profit potentials...
EvilCON - Made Famous by
Darl has apparently violated several clauses in the GPL. Are any of these actionable? Is there a precident for this? I can't imagine a more fitting ending for this than Darl being slapped with a class action lawsuit by kernel contributers (as he's being slapped with his cellmate's schlong, securities fraud==bad). I know Linus wants to avoid this kind of litigation, but a successful suit defending the IP rights of contributers and OSS copyright holders, I feel, can only be good for the GPL.
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
Bob sounds battle weary like the rest of us who care and his point anyway is to alert us to the sinister nature of Darls sad view point and that forces are at work who would see Mr McBide's selfish take on copyright enshrined in law. Nothing new here that aside tho' but the message is clear: the proprietory system is under threat and the lobbying must already have started.
Don't be afraid but be very alert!
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.)
\SCO should have learned from the mistakes that RAMBUS made... You can't build a business model around litigation. Wheres Rambus now?
Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
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?
Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
In other news today SCO anounced they were switching to use the services of the law Firm "Dewie, Screwem & Howe" Expect more action shortly!
Since this story is a dupe , allow me to repeat myself, as well:
You guys should complain to the FTC and the SEC about SCO. I have. It's easy and yes, they do accept complaints from non-US citizens.
------------------
You may like my a cappella music
The "other group" was the Rolling Stones, from what I've heard.
-If
Run a pencil-and-paper RPG campaign with your far-off friends: Gametable!
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.
Check the etymology. Niggard and Niggle have nothing to do with Nigger. By your argument, we can't use Niggle either, because it might "sound" like a racist epithet? I also find it funny that someone (you) who has a problem with the way others use language, use it so badly. Are capitals difficult? Do you know how to use it's/its?
... There, she thought, I've said 'nigger' and Mother wouldn't like that at all." [Margaret Mitchell, "Gone With the Wind," 1936]
You also have a problem with logic. You say the thought of its racial sound didn't cross your mind, yet that's what concerns you: are you assuming that all "average" black people don't know the difference between Nigger and Niggardly? Who's the racist here?
From an etymological dictionary:
niggard - 1366, nygard, the suffix suggests Fr. origin (cf. dastard), but the root word is probably related to O.N. hnoggr "stingy," from P.Gmc. *khnauwjaz; related to O.E. hneaw "stingy, niggardly," which did not survive in M.E.
nigger - 1786, earlier neger (1568, Scot. and northern England dialect), from Fr. negre, from Sp. negro (see Negro). From the earliest usage it was "the term that carries with it all the obloquy and contempt and rejection which whites have inflicted on blacks." But as black inferiority was at one time a near universal assumption in Eng.-speaking lands, the word in some cases could be used without insult. More sympathetic writers late 18c. and early 19c. seem to have used black (n.) and, after the American Civil War, colored person. Also applied by Eng. settlers to dark-skinned native peoples in India, Australia, Polynesia. The reclamation of the word as a neutral or positive term in black culture, often with a suggestion of "soul" or "style," is attested first in the Amer. South, later (1968) in the Northern, urban-based Black Power movement. Variant niggah attested from 1925, usually in situations where blacks use the word; without the -h it is attested from 1969. Slang phrase nigger in the woodpile attested by 1800; "A mode of accounting for the disappearance of fuel; an unsolved mystery" [R.H. Thornton, "American Glossary," 1912]. Nigger heaven, "the top gallery in a (segregated) theater" first attested 1878 in ref. to Troy, N.Y. " 'You're a fool nigger, and the worst day's work Pa ever did was to buy you,' said Scarlett slowly.
niggle - 1599, possibly from a Scand. source (cf. Norw. dial. nigla "be busy with trifles"), perhaps related to source of niggard.
Should we also tell anyone with the name Nygard that they need to change it, or at least shouldn't utter it?
Next time you're wrong, just admit it, or shut up.
Look, "public domain" is a very specific concept. It's the removal of any and all copyright and patent restrictions on a piece of property.
The GPL doesn't "keep derivative works in the public domain" any more than paying a SCO license fee "keeps Linux legal". It's problematic to FOSS's acceptance and proper use to conflate the two.
(However, to be fair, I completely agree with the point about software patents. Perhaps the moderators only read the last paragraph of any given post?)
If Darl's goal was go try to get some company to get excited about the potential of SCO and buy the company for big bucks (which seems pretty likely, or at least some version thereof), then what this guy thinks of Darl's claims about copyright and IP and his itemized rebuttals are completely missing the point. Quite possibly, Darl would say ANYTHING that he thinks might get someone to make him a great offer on the company, and couldn't care LESS what the legal realities of any of the claims are. The idea seems to be if you spread enough FUD that SOMEONE will think you must have some kind of interesting case that is worth investing in, and gobble the company up for big bux.
The only surprise for Darl is that it hasn't happened yet-- the P.T. Barnum effect doesn't seem to be working very well. Never fear though, perhaps Darl's claims just haven't been quite preposterous enough-- yet.
Darl may very well have learned his tricks from the old back of the magazine ad scams-- like the famous one that read "Last chance, send 25c" and nothing else. Supposedly the guy got all kinds of folks to send him quarters.
There's no point in looking so deep into motivations that are so shallow.