Slashdot Mirror
SCO Lobbying Congress Against Open Code
An anonymous reader writes "Along with suing Novell - it was announced today that SCO has been lobbying Congress about the horrifying ways that Linux and the rest of open source software saves users money, allows others to use the software anyway they see fit and 'gasp' causes SCO to not make as much money as they would like. Along with all of the usual FUD. OSAIA has the details (as well as a rebuke)." Darl's words will seem pretty transparent, even funny, to anyone aware of the widespread acceptance and use of Free / Open Source software (by individuals, governments, non-profits, and even companies like SCO) -- but you might have to point this out to your servants in Congress.
Hi, I cannot compete against this, a better product that costs less. Please outlaw it as soon as possible. Competition is just so un-american!
Is that what he is saying?
Dont underestimate this. Go read that letter. Its designed to appeal directly to the politician in every fasion you can possibly do so. It mentions tax revenue losses, US supremecy in world markets, degredation of copyright laws (which RIAA and the MPAA are yelling in the other ear about), and loss of american jobs.
It stops short of claiming the GPL is the communist revival, but it might as well have.
I'd like to see us respond. We need someone who might make sense to these people. Some rich american. An IBM exec would do the trick. The usual rants from FSF, GNU or EFF people aint gonna help us here.
.
It's a free market. If you get things just right, you are free to make tons of money and get filthy rich. (Microsoft) And if you get it wrong, you are free to go the way of the dodo bird and free up capital for those who have a better idea.
While those in power certainly have an interest in protecting American jobs there are a couple of other things to keep in mind. First and foremost, this is an election year. Sure, members of Congress have been made aware of intellectual property issues by the lobbying of the RIAA, but they have also seen what a fiasco that has the potential to be as young children and little old ladies get hauled to court. They may shy away from taking a stand on a complex computer-related intellectual property issue that might also blow up in their faces. Furthermore, although I don't expect politicians to have a sufficient grasp of economics to work this out, Open Source is as, or more likely to be a net creator of American jobs seeing as it has the potential to lower the cost of doing business of all kinds of job producing businesses, even if companies such as SCO may not do well out of it. All in all, I doubt it will have much of a lobbying impact - mostly for the first point I raised.
I've finally got around to changing my sig
...we are firm in our belief that the unchecked spread of Open Source Software, under the GPL, is a much more serious threat to our capitalist system than US corporations realise.
I dunno, I think the huge US corporations pose a greater threat.
1. While the profit motive may be recognized by the Supreme Court as "the best way to advance public welfare through the talents of authors and inventors" (Eldred v. Ashcroft), it is not the only one. The very existance of Open Source software demonstrates that motives other than profit can produce a public benefit and proliferation of knowledge.
2. The so-called "viral" provisions in the GPL that require any derivitive software to be governed by the same license is perfectly consistent with U.S. Copyright laws. Many software source licenses contain similar provisions regarding derivitive works. The SCO case against IBM is partially built on such a derivitive work provision.
3. The GPL, like all software licenses, defines the terms under which the software may be used. If someone doesn't like the terms, then they should not use the software. They can develop their own.
4. The GPL does not require that the software be given away for zero cost, and many proprietary software products exist that make use of (but are not derived from) Open Source software.
Anyone got some more? We need to address the national security FUD too. Let's build a list here!
Otherwise, lying to Congress is illegal. If you received sexual favors and lied to Congress about it, then it's like double-secret illegal.
It's far simpler than that.
If you are a Republican and you lie to a Democratic congress, you are breaking the law (c.f "Iran-Contra").
If you are a Democrat and you lie to a Republican congress, you are breaking the law (c.f. "I did not have sex with that woman").
If you are a Republican and you lie to a Republican congress, you get a standing ovation (c.f. the "State of the Union" address 2002, 2003, 2004).
If you are a Democrat and you lie to a Democratic congress, you may or may not get a standing ovation, but you certainly won't get into trouble.
You will note that this is orthogonal to what precisely it is you are lying about. Arms supplied to Pro-US Central American terrorists in order to arm and pay off Anti-US Middle-Eastern Terrorists got Reagan into trouble with a Democratic congress, but lying about weapon's of mass destruction as a pretense to launching a preemptive war, contravening two centuries of US policy and philosophy, was of no concern to a Republican congress (while Clinton's picadellies in the Oval Office earned him an impeachment).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
- Companies based on selling commodity products are just not going to be as profitable as companies selling unique products. If they try to be, someone will come along and do it cheaper and just as well. Which is why Wal-Mart went out of business on...oh, wait.
- Companies based on delivering low-end basic services, like fast-food restaurants, are just not going to be as profitable as companies selling unique services, like fancy restaurants. If they try to be, someone will come along and do it cheaper and just as well. Which is why McDonald's went out of business on...huh, that example didn't work either.
Point is, there are many axes upon which firms can compete (brand, service level, price, etc.). Open source may hamper some of these axes, but so can other things (e.g., locating a high-end restaurant in a low-income neighborhood may be problematic), so there's no basis in making a general statement about business profitabliity.The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development