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.
sPh
Folks, it's easy to dismiss this as a non-issue but it's a scary thing, this Congress...stuff that doesn't make sense gets passed as law...because corporations LOBBY for it. (not to mention throw around campaign contribution money)
Also, SCO isn't the only company out there lobbying against Linux. This is something Redmond has been actively pursuing long before, and we know how much of a pull those guys have in American government.
We may think it's a stupid threat, but folks, I've seen stupider things happen in politics.
I'm just wondering. It'd be awfully funny if it is.
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.
...
It's akin to saying people who donate their time to help newbies understand computers hurt the bottom line of universities offering CS course. That's silly, people do what they want with what they produce. How can they force people to stop donating what they make?
Then again, at least regarding the Linux kernel, they argue that part of it is theirs, and therefore can't be "donated", so it makes sense in their perpective, in an odd acid trip sort of way
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
...if any Congressmen agrees with Darl, and if so, their names. Why? So I can campaign for whoever's running against them, and if they're in Texas, I'll vote for one of their opponents too.
Not only is supporting SCO's actions unethical, but agreeing with Darl's statements re: open source (regardless of who says them, Darl or not) is just plain anti-freedom. And the idea of someone who hates freedom being in Congress scares me.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
It amazes me that SCO thinks they will be taken seriously by any policymakers when you have the likes of IBM, HP and Apple using Open Source every day.
Darl, you're an idiot who just doesn't get it. You've got enough lawsuits going (what are we up to now: IBM, HP, Google, ???) might as well add another front to your war.
Good riddance SCO, you're bound to loose. And you, Darl, will go down in history as the sorriest idiot ever to run a company. You got in and you let the lawyers take over. And to think that SCO was once a decent player in the GNU/Linux arena. Sour grapes, huh? Asshole.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
I think the Linux advocates in the crowd should form their own lobby. Then lobby the same people SCO is lobbying.
But wait -- don't say anything about Open-Source, software, UNIX, Linux, etc.
Just re-hash the same arguments SCO is making, but in a parody. We should argue that it should be illegal to fix your car in your driveway, since it robs tax-paying mechanics of their livelihood.
With enough access to the drivel coming out of the SCO lobbyist's mouth, it could make for some pretty hilarious (and pointed) commentary.
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
While I am sure that MS is happy to see SCO cause controversy, I hardly doubt they were needed to prompt them into this kind of action. Sure, they will buy a license, knowing that it will fund a lawsuit they will enjoy playing out in court.
Despite what it does have, MS does not have a monopoly on ill-informed, greedy executives willing to make a play for cash. The SCO debacle would have happened with or without MS, plain and simple.
I see this as a sign that he's the only one who is actually still at SCO.
P.S. You don't believe me? Well, who the hell still faxes these days anyway?You are right, IMHO.
It needs to be presented as a way to save American *businesses*.
Look at IBM in the three years before getting the "Open Source Religion" and the three years afterwards...
Look at all the (fair) studies showing that the OS development model produces code faster, with less errors... using programmers with sub-optimal skills...
Look at what the model has produced in 10 years and compare it to what the proprietary model employeed by MS has produced in twice the amount of time... and then compare the cost of obtaining each result...
Show them the latest figures concerning losses suffered by American *businesses* due to viruses affecting proprietary software, and the inability of *any* business to solve the problem because the software *is* proprietary...
Put it in terms that a CEO can understand, and let *them* make sure their "representatives" have the facts.
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
--paranoid mode begin
Does anyone remember a leaked internal Microsoft memo about using 'insider' to fight against Linux. Long ago there was a slashdot story about this, I was trying to find it, but unfortunately couldn't.
What do I see now is that SCO is working hard for the sole purpose of harming Open Source as much as possible with all possible means/methods. I see SCO destroying itself for this sole purpose. I see exactly the same arguments Microsoft was talking in their first FUD campaign against GPL ('viral license' etc.). I can see some additional arguments looking pretty serious (at least from an average pro-corporate congressman point of view). Now (lobbying) it seems clear for me that Microsoft is pulling ALL the strings of SCO.
--paranoid mode end
Can anyone find that story I mentioned earler ?
The open source movement simply doesn't appear as a potential source of campaign cash to congressmen, so the likelihood of these dolts being convinced to side with SCO and go against open source software is high.
I spent far, far too long studying politics before I realized how much it absolutely drove me insane, and it's these sorts of things -- complete ineptitude on behalf of this nation's leaders -- that drove me back to compsci. The fact of the matter is that SCO looks like dollar-bills to politicians, and open source looks like some strange threat to democracy (the same way they view 3rd parties).
I fully expect, and will be very pissed off when/if it happens, Congress to side with SCO's lobbying and proposals.
Its very interesting to me that someone from a New Zealand domain is so concerned about American politics. Its doubly interesting when that person claims that without US IP law (blah blah I just don't feel like typing it all out everytime), American entities cannot compete in the "free market".
My question is, how does what American entities do affect you, and why do you care? Can entities from your country (not just NZ but any other) not compete against the American entities in your local markets?
If they cannot I would say that is a testimony in favor of the American IP system. If the American IP system leads to such innovation that the only way to compete with it is to tear it down and sell it to the lowest bidder, that actually says alot.
Is this a comment on this SCO issue? Not really, just my thoughts on your currently +4 comment. In summary, if other entities cannot compete with American entities, maybe those peoples should be looking within instead of without for reasons and solutions rather than attacking a system that actually gets results.
The only way to bind all software by U.S. export controls is to prevent foreign developers from creating software. "Perhaps SCO believes that only U.S. developers have the 'right' to develop software," OSAIA's Black said. "They should understand that it is a big world, and developers outside the U.S. have helped make the tech industry what it is today."
Remember when encryption came to browsers, and you had to certify that you were in the U.S. before you could download Netscape?
I'm thinking that there must be a fair number of software companies that are watching the U.S. government today and are thinking that similar export restrictions could once again become a significant problem.
I can see a day - say after Al Quaida manages an actual attack via the Internet - when Dick Cheney's mob makes it illegal to sell American software to Foreigners.
Perhaps some forward looking companies are moving significant parts of their programming offshore just to avoid this possibility.
As in "American software? No this is INDIAN software, so the American export rules don't apply!".
Three Squirrels
This is not written well from a political view. A few obvious mistakes that highlight a fissure in the SCO leadership.
1. You should never imply that the knoledge or information you are highlighting has been realized within the government.
2. US Budgets are forcasts but not forcasts on something as fragile as the tax benefits that "COULD" be realized from software sales. This is especially true of a market where that revenue has not yet been realized.
I co uld continue to point out similar prooblems with this fax but I think it is more interesting to see how SCO buries themselves.
You make it sound like it's never happened before. In World War II American's were encouraged to grow hemp for the war effort. In the 50's, Dupont saw easily grown hemp as competition. However, he knew better then attack it directly, so his friend William Hearst started a campaign against marijuana, and had hemp criminalized since it was 'hard' to tell them apart.
This, obviously, is a summary, but the point remains - this has happened before. The only difference is Hearst had a stranglehold on the media industry and therefore public opinion, and all kinds of crazy views are available on the internet.
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
Kind of surprised the lawyers have not muzzled that moron yet.
I would have agreed with you, back when SCO was pretending it's lawyers were just working on contingency. In that case, the lawyers would be paid only if SCO won the IBM case, and so it would make sense for them to do everything possible (including shutting up Darl) to ensure a victory.
Now that we know that SCO's lawyers are getting paid even if they lose, we can no longer be certain that they're expecting (or even hoping) to win. In fact, it's possible that SCO's lawyers are quite aware of how they're getting paid and understand that Darl's media circus is more likely to extend those paychecks than to curtail them.
I'm impressed with the level of lobying in the US. Any corporation, from Disney, to MS even SCO can lobby it's way in businness through a law... doesn't matter it hurts consumers (I was about to say citizens, but corporations see the people as consumers only - get used, you are a consumer with some citizenry rights that will be eroded little by little until you become just a CONSUMER)
Copyrights for 75 years? No, Mickey is already 75... let's make 120... Music sales is down? A new tax for CDR, tell people that downloading is thief... who cares if the music is shit? You are a consumer... the new hollywood blockbuster failed? the fucking consumers sending SMS messages and talking to friends that the movie is garbage, destroying a very well planned (and expensive) marketing plan... how dare you have an oppinion? shut up and buy, or else you are a communist, a terrorist or some other "ist"
Due the trail left by others I don't think that SCO is doomed to failure... I can see even a chance of victory...
scary...
If Darl really beleives what he has written here that there really is no hope for him, he's lost touch with reality, poor guy. I don't know where to start... ..Open Source software that has gained many of its capabilities through the illegal incorporation of code "borrowed" from the rightful owners...
Those who designed the GPL readily admit that they created this licence to have the effect of "freeing" software - taking it out of the realm of copyright protection by placing it in the public domain...
WRONG: The GPL asserts the right of the creator's ownership by restricting the use of the code - it just gives permission for others to read, modify and distribute the code under strict provisions. GPL software is not public domain at all.
The GPL is carefully designed to have a viral effect - it "frees" the software that is proprietary, licenceable and a source of income from the companies that developed it
WRONG! - GPL'ing someone else's software is theft as much as giving it away. GPL'd software is licenced as such by the companies and individuals that created it and it is their right to allow their work to be used in whatever way they wish.
The second problem with Open Source software is that it is not all original
PROVE IT - If someone has stolen your code, then prove it! To assert it without offering any evidence is dishonest. You may have "taken legal action against those who have misappropriated their corporate assets but they don't seem to have succeeded in even raising a case, other than threats and misinformation.
Free, or low cost Open Source software, full of proprietary code, is grabbing an increasing portion of the software market
UNPROVEN! - Darl, you're asserting something you've not proven then said it's unfair. If it where true, then it would be scandalous. But, it's not true. The problem is you can't cope with low cost competition. But free newspapers compete with regular papers that cost, because they offer more, which is what SCO should be trying to do rather than throwing it's toy's out the pram.
Why should a software company invest to develop exciting new capabilities when their software coud end up "freed" as part of Linux under the GPL?
MISLEADING! - GPL software is not propriatary software that's been freed - it's been developed by the people that chose to releas it under the GPL - it's not been "freed" or "stolen". This is just scare words to make the GPL feel illegal.
Instead of UNIX from any number of U.S.companies or Windows from Microsoft, governments throughout Europe and Asia are using Linux, often downloaded free from the internet. I find this particularly galling because that Linux software contains thousands of lines of my company's proprietary UNIX code - for which we recieve no revenue. SCO has a strong, involuntary presence in certain non-U.S. government markets - but this is only through the unauthrised use of our code in Linux software
BALONEY Once again you assert something you have not even been able to illustrate let alone prove!!!
WRONG! - if I was going to steal code, I would hardly publish under the GPL where it's owners lawyesr would have unhindered access to proof of my crime! No, if I had stolen code I might choose to fail to show my code to anyone, even if I was accusing others of stealing mine in an attempt to divert attention from my crime....
The threat to our national security...
WRONG and ALARMIST! - If Open Software didn't exist I don't see that would stop a Libian Terrorist popping into CIrcuit City and buying a PC with Windows XP or SCO unix on. ANd if I was trying to overthrow the US government I would think my budget would stretch to a few hundred pounds for a SCO unix licence...
I'm not going to comment on the rest of this pile of detrietus because I may lose the will to live in the process.. I do hope the SCO board and shareholders realise what complete idiots Darl is making them look like. I hope Congress send him off with a flea in his ear, but somehow I fear they will not.
*--BigMan--- Time flies like an arrow.. but personally I prefer a nice glass of wine!
If he thinks the Linux kernel is a threat then he hasn't been watching FreeBSD for the past 10 years.
Linux is used on a small percentage of web servers: Apache is the king here and it runs on anything. He's trying to talk up Linux ! Thanks but no Thanks.
Only SCO believes that GPL contradicts US Copyright law. I'd trust EFF here.
GPL keeps code IN COPYRIGHT and not the public domain. Public Domain is near impossible to achieve as an individual under US law as far as I know. I think some goverment stuff can be public domain but its quite rare (IANAL)
Free beer verses free freedom: usual misunderstandings ! Typical Lindows or Mandrake boxed set is quite a lot more expensive than free !.
I think of GPL not facing a court case like many would like other laws to also not be tested in court e.g. murder, rape, embezzlement, Dangerous Driving, Kidnap and so on. If I reword GPL for SCO: GPL is a social contract and it says: if you steal the code then you have certain obligations.
McBride: We've said this time and time again and yet you refuse to prove that Linux contains significant Unix code. Anyone who says that yet fails to prove it has something to hide.
The US a capitalist system ? Bullshit: its Federal Socialism when you cry to government because you can't get your way in the market. Open Source is the product of raw capitalism as it ruthlessly uses the economic might of many companies to remove all competition. Microsoft know this and will probably adapt but they have $40 billion to play with across many product lines, whereas SCO has one product that few are wanting.
Linux is not full of proprietary code. This is lie.
McBride: Open Source allows more money to be spent on value-added services. Its better for the economy not worse. Services are on-site not offshore whereas line of code can easily be created off-shore.
North Korea supercomputer !: McBride, you ignoramus: Personal Computer do not need multi-processor capabilities. Personal computers are (generally) UNI-PROCESSOR. This means One processor you jerk. A cluster is many PCs and its useless with just Linux. It MUST also use Beowulf code or Mosix to be a cluster. If you thnk Beowulf or Mosix have got stolen Unix code then then say so. Linux on its own doesn't make a supercomputer.
It explains a lot about SCO press releases. I thought that there may just be some possiblity of Unix code leaking into Linux accidently and sincerely wish this was removed (I don't need JFS or NUMA anyway even if JFS was IMHO all from IBM and NUMA was from Dynix/Sequent).
Looks like it is simply an emotional breakdown by the CEO. It happens and its sad both for Mr McBride and for the employees and shareholders of SCO.
So when are they switching their webserver from apache and linux? Don't they know they're costing jobs in Redmond? F*ing hypocrites.
Bullshit. If that's really the case, then come up with a version of Napster that is *only* used for unsigned artists and *then* see how much they try to sue you.
No need. Just look at the actions they take against the unsigned artists themselves, including trying to shut down (with DMCA letters to the ISP, and other stormtrooper tactics) the fan web sites and the unsigned artists's own web sites "to protect them." The artist formerly known as the artist formerly known as Prince had a big rant about this a while back, and there have been news stories (NPR) about it as well.
-- MarkusQ
Rep. Pallone: A company by the name of SCO has been contacting members of Congress in regards to its ongoing litigation and campaign of slander against free software. Its most visible target is the free operating system Linux. While I support anyone's rights to state their views, the copy of the letter that I read contains much that is yet to be proven in court. While SCO has continually widened their attacks, they have yet to prove even one of their assertions in a court of law. Not one. In addition, the letter contains numerous misstatements of fact about free software, and the people who support and contribute to it. I would urge you and your fellow members of Congress to wait until this has been settled by the court system, which is the proper place for this kind of dispute. If at any time you or your staff would like more information about free software, please feel free to contact me. Of course, there are also many excellent web sites on this subject also. Regards, D---- Z-----
This is a sign that SCO believes they might not win in the courts with existing laws,
Or they are creating one hell of a backup plan and supporting evidence trail to cover their asses for a potential stock fraud case. They can claim they were honestly doing what they "thought" was right and not just trying to manipulate the stock prices on false claims and slight misunderstandings.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
I was searching Google for leads to the goevernment's use of OSS, and found this insightful article. Washington technology.com You might want to make reference to it in your letter. Granted it is from the chairman of Open-Source Software Institute. But the information is still relavant to this issue. It will give some info about the situation, and give explanations of what OSS really is.
It just amazes me how theres always a comment about how Republicans are all for helping out SCO.
In reality, if you asked George Bush who SCO is, he probably wouldn't know. But I'm pretty sure he knows who IBM is.
And IBM has lobbyists too, plus they could easily donate the entire value of SCO to political campaigns if they wanted to.
AFAIK, Eben Moglen can be considered one of the authors of the GPL, and I wonder what a professor of law and history of columbia would have to say about this. Isn't there a punishment for slander in the US btw, especially if it can be proved that the difference between public domain and software licenced under the GPL was brought to the attention of SCO on numerous occasions. This is getting more and more ridiculous, and the sad thing is that you are probably right. Seeing the current political climate, this appeals to most polititians unfortunately.
The oil companies outlawing bicycles? Pretty close, actually. There's a haphazard international collection of activists called "Critical Mass" which has the naive idea that everyone would be better off if people ditched their cars and rode bikes. Periodically, they get together and ride bikes in large numbers in the hopes that it will create a "Critical Mass" of bicyclists.
Response from business and law enforcement in the US is swift, harsh and unrelenting. In my own city the usual official descriptions range from "Communist" and "anarchist" (neat trick, that) to "terrorist". Lots of police presence, lots of arrests, lost of MJTF Homeland Security money going to keep them from riding bikes without at least one police officer per bicycle rider.
Food defamation laws are now routine. To say anything that would disparage food products or production is a crime in most states. It's not just "I don't like broccoli". Dairies have been shut down through legal pressure because they stated that their milk was free of BGH. Monsanto contended that simply saying that disparaged and defamed anyone who used BGH. Complain about the horrendously unsanitary conditions on the huge industrial hog farms? You could end up in court if you make noise anyone hears.
Yes, Virginia, that really is the way business is run these days.
The powers that be do not like even the possibility of dissent. Milton Friedman said during the first Bush Administration that one of the great advances was that nobody could even conceive of alternatives.
The man who never alters his opinion is like the stagnant water and breeds Reptiles of the Mind -- William Blake
It just amazes me how theres always a comment about how Republicans are all for helping out SCO.
Republicans are actually well-known for decrying what they see as abuses of the civil courts by money-grubbing trial lawyers; this is one of their favorite slams on John Edwards. One wouldn't expect them to be sympathetic towards a company that has shifted their entire business model towards filing lawsuits against nearly every successful tech company in the country.
Frankly, I think IBM, RedHat, and the rest should counter with an aggressive pro-capitalism endorsement of the GPL. They should emphasize how collaborative software development and open standards are improving technology for both industry and consumer. Basically, just copy Microsoft's "Freedom to Innovate" campaign, applied to Linux instead.
(And above all, keep RMS muzzled.)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/12058.html
According to reports - well, one anyway - Caldera Systems and the Santa Cruz Operation are in discussions which could see the Linux company acquire SCO's OpenServer and UnixWare operating systems. SCO also owns the rights to the Unix trademark, and sits atop a pile of ye originale AT&T Unix code, some of which it's been judiciously leaking as open source over the past year.
What if Linux Contains SCO Code?
Then it will be gladly removed, once identified.
If true, any normal business would deal with it, except we all know how cheap linux users/coders can be.
And, not many people would blame them.
However... how would you feel about being forced to pay for something you don't want ?
Nobody wants illegitimate code in Linux. Everyone is willing to do without the code. Yet, SCO is trying to game the system... by not identifying what it believes to be problematic code.
Why?
Because they can't make you pay for something you aren't using. And, if they identify the code, it will be removed. And... so would their potential income.
Its the Linux Bigots in the world that will destroy the software movement. They dont know how to market, or even how to code very well.
The software movement started dieing when MS stopped including BASIC in the OS. This was their first move towards making programming a commercial activity .
Open Source, and Linux, puts software development tools back in the hands of every computer user that wants them and is actually causing a resurgence in the software movement.
Their strengths are in their shear numbers, and the fact that they value their work at nothing (which would be true for the majority of coders)..
Last time I looked, Linux users were outnumbered almost 10 to 1 by Windows users. And, I bill out at $50 an hour, I'm sure my customers would disagree with your assessment about that being "nothing".
Stupidity reinforcing stupidity.
That happens. I don't believe this to be the case... nor is it specific to Linux.
Im sure some Holier-than-thou I know everything but I dont have a real job linux user will come up and try to argue with what I've said.
Right on the money... unless you count the $60,000 I made in 2003 running my own business and only working 30 hours a week as a job.
;-)
But to tell you the truth, I've heard it. I've heard it a 1000 times on this fucking website, and It didnt make sense the first time I heard it, and it just keeps getting louder and whinier.
Then... go away.
Read a book... Get a life... Listen to music... make love... whatever.
Why in the hell would you voluntarily do shit you don't like?
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
sometime back there was a senator who fought tirelessly for suspension of funds to pure math research because he had received some money from the publisher of discrete math textbooks. so what if th epolitician knew nothing of math? he had some pretty good arguments why ONLY discrete math should be researched in this world..
US politicians are no different from the rest of the world.
This was inevitable. Don't forget that Sen. Hatch's son is an attorney for SCO and that Orin Hatch is about as far removed as a defender of true liberty as one can get. SCO owns a strong lobby in Sen. Orin Hatch.
This strategy WILL eventually succeed. All of us have seen the intelligence of Congress and this should erase all doubt in our minds as to what is *eventually* going to happen next. Open Source will become illegal, coding will become a "licensed discipline" and freedom as we know it is about to be murdered.
If you honestly believe you have any power to change this - think again. A flurry of activity will flutter across Slashdot and maybe Groklaw - then our rape of liberty and freedom. We can count on the news media to spew the lies of SCO in such a way that will soon have Linux being in league with child porn, terrorists and God only knows what else.
The only thing that matters in this world is power and they have it and we do not.
I just got finished reading Darl McBride's letter to Congress about the evils of Open Source software and would like to provide an alternative view. I've been working with different flavors of UNIX since the early 80s. I graduated from my first computer school while serving in the U.S. Army in the early 70s.
Darl McBride's assertions are the most outlandish use of "national security" claims I have ever seen.
SCO (formerly Caldera Linux) has become a litigation company starting with their purchase of DR-DOS, which they sued Microsoft over immediately. Now they have purchased SCO's UNIX assets and again filed law suits to make a profit.
The President says we need tort reform because run-away litigation is hurting the economy, and SCO would be a perfect example to make that case.
Addressing his assertion that "free software" hurts the economy and companies that publish commercial software I suggest the following. There is another popular free software license called BSD, which doesn't restrict commercial vendors like SCO and Microsoft from integrating code into their products without "giving back to the free software community", which both MS and SCO have done repeatedly. What Darl McBride really doesn't like about the GNU GPL license is it doesn't allow him to tap this large resource of free programmers.
SCO still distributes free software (SAMBA, SENDMAIL, etc) with it's commercial flavors of UNIX, which brings into question his assertions about the dangers of free software.
Sun Microsystems realized this and manages to stay in business giving away copies of Solaris knowing that people calling in for "paid support" and/or buying their hardware will be the real cash cow. Also they will gain new customers and software developers that they would otherwise not have with pricing like SCO has on it's products.
Now to explain how free software has had a positive effect on my computer career. As a UNIX devotee I found it a bit frustrating that I could not make a decent living writing software for UNIX because my customer base (small to medium size businesses) could not afford my software and an expensive copy of commercial UNIX (often $1000 to $2000). This left me writing my applications for Microsoft Operating Systems because they are low priced in comparison.
Since "available applications" is a selling point for any Operating System commercial UNIX has often been hurt by it's own pricing.
Once free flavors of UNIX became available I was finally able to work on my OS of choice, and give my customers a superior product in the process (anyone who has used Windows knows about how it likes to crash).
In my humble opinion Free Software has created many more jobs that it may have displaced, so PLEASE don't let one company that loves to litigate it's profits ruin the fastest growing software market in the USA today.
Note: Since 1987 (and currently) I have made part of my living supporting SCO based commercial applications (Lightspeed, medical management apps, etc) written by other programmers, so assuming I'm just anti-SCO would be reaching. However, I am NOT happy with their current business model of suing for profit.
"Some readers, at this point, may be somewhat surprised that I am talking about legaleze and lawsuits regarding a humble churchy program. I have to do this in order to protect my freedom and your freedom. There are a lot of greedy people out there who would take the community's hard work, which they have made free, and make their work non-free in order to make money and/or to take power. The GPL is designed to keep that from happening, by leveraging existing copyright law to protect the code."
Amen to that.
I wonder if Darl is on their mailing list?
http://www.osaia.org/letters/sco_hill.pdf
Does anyone know if someone from the Linux community sent in rebuttals to this pdf? If not... please do. Quite a bit of Congress is not Tech savvy. I think the more that respond to it in a good way, the more they will listen. I just hope Congress doesn't fall for this BS.
I'd like to see the new law for that one. Something to the effect of "It is unlawful for any person to give intellectual property that they have produced to others without monetary compensation." So then people start selling their source for 1 cent. Then the government counters with a new law that sets a minimum price per line of source... This exercise is already getting silly.
Well, the government is now firmly into regulating what happens in the tech industry, and doing what they do best- making uninformed decisions which no intelligent person would make. An making sure you comply with those decisions.
This is the future! Hope you like it.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
... might be to point out to congress how much SCO themselves have profited from the GPL and Open-Source-Software in the past, and how much value it adds to their products even now. The best example is probably gcc and other development tools for UnixWare, even SCO admits that gcc is the compiler of choice if you want portability.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
1. Open source software is free, leading management and general users to believe that no one ever should pay for anything software-related.
This is incorrect. [A]nything software related is too strong of a position. RMS sold copies of the manuals for the GNU operating system and suggested other ways to make money from free software products:
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/ stallman.html
A close read of RMS suggests that he has a strong resistance to the use of proprietary software, but he is not necessarily against the profit motive. The money that one can earn from free software is less per individual but more evenly dispersed among talented individuals.
2. Open-source products are available to anyone, which led to outflux of jobs out of United States, since a developer in Tanzania knows Apache or MySQL just as well, but is willing to work for 2 kilos of rice a day, unlike their greedy American counterparts.
The outflux of jobs from the United States to overseas locations may be for the reasons that you describe, but it may be for other reasons as well. See the following letter from Alan Cox and Linus Torvalds:
http://www.effi.org/patentit/patents_torvalds_co x.html
They suggest that the outsourcing that we are seeing is actually related to the problem of patents and litigation surrounding patents. Small to medium-sized companies cannot survive in such a litigious environment, and larger companies are willing to shift their R&D overseas to avoid litigation in the Homeland.
3. Open-source projects have never been tested and approved by Microsoft or other reliable software vendors with market cap over 100 billion and public trust behind them.
The situation is changing:
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5144199.html
The technology is new and lacks the big marketing dollars that push other software products. But this situation is also changing as companies such as IBM get up to the plate. I also fail to see why Microsoft or other proprietary software vendors would be rushing out to test and approve of a competing product (e.g., Apache Server vs. Windows Server 2003 or whatever MS has).
4. All open source companies are either bankrupt, or litigating, or in the process of bankruptcy/litigation process.
I'm not familiar with business trends, although it would be interesting to know if companies that use free software are more susceptible than those that aren't. At least one nice counterpoint is presented by Ernie Ball:
http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html?tag =lh
This is a small company that survived because they dumped proprietary software and avoided strong-arm tactics. I would call them an open source company that is not bankrupt or in litigation. It's safe to assume that there are others.
5. Open source companies contributed more to the job losses in the software industry than any other company sector. Microsoft had always been hiring and so have other closed-source companies.
This may depend on what you define as a job. Logically, you can't effectively compete against a company that gives it's product away for free; only an idiot would argue that no jobs were lost due to the mainstream acceptance of free software. But many, many, other less high-profile jobs were created. There is an army of consultants, found in our local computer user groups and so forth, who have been able to make it through these hard times (created by .com spending sprees that resembled manic euphoria) by
providing services as programmers. Free software and its culture has
kept families off of welfare, folks.
6. O
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!
Funnily enough yes. The strangest part though is that Darl thinks that killing OSS in the US will kill it worldwide. I forsee a problem with this particularly with respect to France and Germany who have Mandrake and (Novell owned) SuSE in their back yards. An attempt to kill off homegrown products in countries that are already wary of the US following the Iraq business could lead to WTO complaints, trade wars, import tariffs on US made software and an even greater determination in the rest of the world to replace proprietry software that would be percieved as being forced on them.
Even in Microsoft friendly Britain this would have an impact as tariffs applied across the EU would hit all the EU states making OSS a better value choice. I also can't see China, Russia and India reacting too well to the US seemingly attempting to force Linux out of existence in order to provide MS and SCO with a better cash cow. There are 6 billion potential computer users in the world of which 250 (ish) million are in the USA. Making too many other countries feel like they're choice as consumers is being dictated from Redmond/Utah may not be as good for the US economy as Darl thinks.
With a diminished US software presence in Europe, China and Asia Mandrake, SuSE, Red-Star etc. would probably see a boom in profits and an industry providing support would develop that would generate cash that wouldn't head to Gate's wallet improving home grown companies positions.
OK so this is a bit doomsday but shit happens and unpredictability is part of the modern world. I mean a year or two ago most people had never heard of Darl McBride, now he's he's one of the most famous arseholes in the IT world.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
Gates and Ballmer have been behaving in exactly this way for years, but now they have to keep in line with the judgment, so they have resorted to using a third party to do their dirty work. Sad for them that they picked one as discredited as McFraud, but maybe he was the only one they could easily get a financial hold over.