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.
So when will SCO be lobbying God to stop all these bad things? Seems like the next logical step in that fantasy world Darl lives in.
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
SCO will have a major impact I'm sure. They can make their political contributions in stock options.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
IBM's lobbyists are a helluva lot better paid and effective than SCO's will be...that's a place where SCO will lose in the FUD war. Can't bullshit a bullshiter..
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?
1. Open source software is free, leading management and general users to believe that no one ever should pay for anything software-related.
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.
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.
4. All open source companies are either bankrupt, or litigating, or in the process of bankruptcy/litigation process.
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.
6. Open source does not have a vital business model.
7. There are many software shops that write little Access-thingies and make thousands of dollars per month. Microsoft had made thousand of millionaires in the software business. Linux so far only earned money for IBM and HP.
8. As Linus himself shamefully admitted, errno.h was shamelessly copied from SCO Software Development Labs. Thus the terrorist organizations around the world know the error codes for any Linux system and potentially coudl disrupt nuclear reactors and spaceships.
Run. RUN!!! Run to your local lawmaker and have them change the rules. A play right out of Darl's CEO 101 Handbook.
Its too late, Darl. You can't preserve your house of cards by hoping someone will change the laws of physics for you.
sPh
SCO doesn't mind using Samba.
i don't like style guides
"You can lead a man to congress, but you can't make him think."
- Milton Berle
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.
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
They claim that Open Source threatens "[The US] continued ability to lead the world in technological innovation/[The US] international competitive position in the global software industry".
Well, yes, it does. That is only because up until now we have been talking about what amounts to a closed protectionist system via closed formats, software patents etc. Welcome to the free market. That's not to say that the US position in the software industry won't be very competitive, merely that they'll actually have to compete with everyone else on a level playing field.
Is he arguing that free markets are against US ideology? Interesting take - might even be true from the point of view of some elements of congress.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
This is a sign that SCO believes they might not win in the courts with existing laws, and so must lobby to change the laws to their benefit.
How they can hope to do this in the face of much better funded and more experienced lobbyists who are opposed to them is a mystery.
I think it's also a sign that their whole strategy is running out of steam.
HCG 50a = 2MASX J11170638+5455016
11h17m06.4s +54d55m02s
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()?
# $version 0.01$
my $funds = get_money('src'=>'microsoft');
$funds += get_money('src'=>'sun');
$funds += get_money('src'=>'baystar');
$funds += get_money('src'=>'hapless_investors');
while ( $funds > 0 )
{
$funds -= pay_legal();
sue_someone('target'=>rand);
public_release('threat'=>rand);
}
die;
  ;
1. The threat to the U.S information technology industry
"Please legislate to save our industry so we can send it to offshore sweatshops and make gazillions (and those election campaigns ain't cheap hey Mr Congresscritter )."
2. The threat to our international competitive position.
"Forget anthrax - Linux is the real WMD!"
3. The threat to our national security.
"Forget Saddam - Linus is the real enemy of humanity, and you can add Finland to the axis of evil! Those Finns, what have they done for us recently, with their weird language and dinky little phones."
What the hell were the UNIX companies doing during that time? They could have remained competitive. They could have kept up with the times. They could have written the GUI apps that their users wanted. They could have incorporated new coding techniques into their code bases. They could have kept the desktop market. If an unpaid rabble of amateurs could do it, why couldn't these companies, collectively worth billions of dollars? Nevermind Apple, merrily rubbing their faces in how easy it is for a for-profit company to do exactly the same thing.
If I were a shareholder of the big UNIX companies, upper management would have a lot of 'splaining to do.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Send it to your favorite congressman, err woman, err entity. Point at the words Linux and GPL.
It might be worth its bucks after all.
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've got to hand it to McBride, he's finally pushed my buttons. Up until I read his letter, I'd been watching this SCO fiasco from the sidelines. I hadn't been too worried, because I'd been convinced that IBM would prevail in court.
I have a bit less faith in the average politician's grasp of these issues, though, particularly with McBride going out of his way to spout about "national security" and suchlike. Like any good showman, he knows his audience.
I'll need to spend a day or two getting the tone and wording just right (polite, reasoned, and respectful), but my Senators and Representatives will be receiving an alternative viewpoint by next week.
Well, maybe more than one...
obviously that depends on the situation:
-No, if it's about an invasion of another country!
-Yes, if its about the "invasion" of an intern.
Here is an interesting article that is in the Salt Lake Weekly:
4 -0 1-22.cfm
http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/2004/feat_200
In this article, which is really above average, Darl McBride is quoted making the following interesting statement:
"McBride says SCO revealed the offending code last August at its Las Vegas SCOForum. "Truly, and then they just ignored it," he said."
Now, I must point out Bruce Perens put his analysis of the Las Vegas SCOforum with hours of it ending last August 18th.
Link to Perens analysis:
http://www.perens.org/SCO/SCOSlideShow.html
Also, Darl misquoted Perens' website so Darl knows it exists. Therefore, for Darl McBride to say that the Las Vegas SCOforum's showing of code "was ignored" is to make a lie that can be documented quite easily.
Darl McBride: documented liar
That giant sucking sound that was in the news a few years ago (about NAFTA) would be back, but this time, it would be real and it would be all the software and services jobs going to India, China, etc., maybe even Europe. Anywhere that was not so stupid as to ban FOSS.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
"But a computer expert in North Korea who has a number of personal computers and an internet connection can download the latest version of Linux, complete with multi-processing capabilities misappropriated from UNIX..."
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.
I'm just wondering. It'd be awfully funny if it is.
It would appear it isn't.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
That depends what the meaning of the word 'is' is.
Next, the Oil companies try to outlaw bicycles?
Calling atheism and agnosticism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.
...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.
I mean, seriously. You can scoff at it all you like, but this is *the most* likely way that SCO will win.
I think it is very important for each and everyone to take 10 minutes to write your congressman/woman about why Open Source is important and why you feel strongly that they do *not* vote for any bills limiting open licensing.
Frankly, money talks, especially in Congress. And although SCO isn't wealthy by any stretch, they do have more money than you.
I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
up to a point. Open source is going to drive down the value of software. It prevents lock-in while allowing practically anyone to enter the market for a relatively low capital investment. Perhaps worst of all (from a shareholder's perspective) it allows people to bypass the market entirely, getting the software to run their computers for free.
Companies based on Open source software are just not going to be as profitable as proprietary software companies with a lock on the market. If they try to be, someone will come along and do it cheaper and just as well.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Oh, I get it now! "We don't like free software, except on our terms - i.e. when we're using it exclusively, it's O.K., but otherwise, get rid of it already!"
Geez. They must really, really want to be disliked...
Although some slashdotters may diagree with the underlying premise, the way to fight this is by making a private property argument.
A developer who writes a piece of software, like any author, "owns" his work. It is the fundamental right of every American to dispose of their own property however they wish. This includes the right to give it away.
McBride argues that congress should essentially sieze any property that is not being used for "conventional" economic gain. This is quite a socialist agenda, and regardless would be prohibited by the fifth amendment of the Constitution.
Property arguments are very persuasive in the halls of power, and given this argument no congressmen would give Darl the time of day.
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.
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 obviously just the tip of the iceburg. Anyone have more?
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
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.
This is like saying that women should not be able to give sex out for free because it competes with the rights of hookers to rent what they got at exhorbitant prices.
Way to go SCO!!!!
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...
The RIAA has a decent point... their product IS being illegally bootlegged. No matter how "illegal" you feel this action is, you cannot deny that it is.
You've missed the whole point of the RIAA's panic. They have no objection to people hearing music from bands they control for free--heck, they even pay to get them played on radio stations, in movies, etc. That whole line is sham/FUD--even they know that file sharing actually promotes CD sales.
The reason file sharing scares them so is that it lets people hear music from bands that they don't control. It's exactly the same problem MS/SCO has: their market share is being threatened by outsiders who can survive on much less than they can (see "The Innovator's Dilema" for a detailed explanation of the problem) by cutting them out of the equation.
And they have hit upon the same solution: Take advantage of the market's ignorance to claim that they are only trying to protect "their" property when in fact they are trying to destroy someone else's.
-- MarkusQ
P.S. I have a toddler and it is amazing how much the corporate world's view of "Market Rights" resembles a toddler's view of "Toy Rights"--e.g., I want it, I was playting with it, it's mine, and I will hurt anyone who tries to say otherwise.
If one decides they wish to write a letter to their representative they should also include how voting against open source software can negatively affect their campaign. If you take a look at the current job openings for say the Dean campaign you will see they are looking for people with experience using Firebird, Mozilla and many other non-Microsoft open source products. Voting against Open Source means the politician will have to spend precious dollars on software than on campaigning next time they need to be re-elected.
Remember, find ways Open Source directly effects the politician and they will be more likely to listen, or tell them how voting against it will cause people to be out of work. They hate that just as much.
---- Fight to protect your right to keep and arm bears! ummmm... ya I think that's right....
There's a very important part of the document that everybody needs to be aware of.
SCO argues that the authority of Congress under the U.S. Constitution to "promote the Progress of Science and the useful arts..." inherently includes a profit motive, and that protection for this profit motive includes a Constitutional dimension.
There it is, in writing. SCO is claiming the Constitution implies a right to profit. One twist of bad logic later, and you get the concept that only those making profit have a right to intellectual property. This idea, even more than the attack on FOSS, is extremely dangerous.
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.
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
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?
When American companies are heavily subsidised by the US government, they are able to sell produce in other countries way below the production cost. Local economies, not benefitting from such protectionist support (since their government rarely has deep-enough pockets), are unable to compete, and are driven out of business. That is how American entities affect companies in other countries.
The US loves free trade, as long as free trade means "we can dump our products below cost in your markets, but if you try to do business in our markets, we'll slap tariffs over your product quicker than you can break wind."
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
to outlaw something that has been deemed by the courts to be free speach? Outlawing Open Source Software would be like outlawing a book on how to fix a car or be a carpenter because it takes away money from mechanics and real carpenters.
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-----
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!".
I predicted something like this pre-DMCA, where American laws (like the DMCA) and American litigiousness would drive most of the software industry overseas. This was at least five years ago (and posted here on slashdot as well as USENET), and if I recall correctly I said something along the lines of "in five or ten years we will be decrying the loss of high-tech jobs to those overseas, bashing whatever up-and-coming country has usurped our technical lead, and wondering why all the money and jobs had left the US economy.
I didn't know it would be India (though I speculated India, China, or even Europe would be possibilities), and I didn't know it would happen via outsourcing, but I am unsurprised at the result.
And yes, I do think the actions of monopolists such as Microsoft and their litigious hired thugs, such as SCO, will drive the remnants of US software innovation overseas, just as the DMCA has already done to some degree (DVD player software and video encoding technologies developed in Europe) and just as the idiotic encryption policies did (gnupg and others are still developed overseas).
It is a very short step from being an "outsourcing" company for HP to becoming a foreign competitor of HP (perhaps using insider info garnered through previous outsourcing, but more likely simply exploiting the natural expertise gained from doing someone elses work for them and learning to do it better and cheaper than they can).
This is the decline of the American technology sector, and it is almost a picture perfect imitation of what happened to the American automobile industry. Instead of Shoddy Ford Pintos blowing up we have Shoddy Microsoft Windows contracting every bug and virus under the sun, and instead of Detroit protectionism we have the likes of SCO and Microsoft creating a ripe environment for a competitor.
That competitor is Free Software, and banning it in America will not make it go away at all. It will simply mean that America has no competative product, while every other nation on the planet does. Sianara American preeminence in software engineering.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
SCO is soooo not even relavent anymore.
The scary thing is that SCO, no matter how wrong thier case may be, is more relevant now than they've been in years. The fact that SCO's execs know the language of finance, marketing and business makes them relevant, as that is the language that most of our representatives in Congress speak every day. The fact that thier parent company (The Canopy Group) is a well known investment house owned by a board of influential, respected, and well connected investors makes them relevant. And the fact that we live in a culture where very few people can see worth in something that has not been paid for makes SCO relevant.
Not everyone yet understands what Open Source is about, and not everyone who does understand Open Source views it as a "Good Thing(tm)". There are several reasons that the Open Source community should not be lulled into taking SCO's actions lightly, as the bigger picture that is being presented by this lobbying effort is that this dispute is not simply about a "breach of contract", nor is it simply a licensing dispute, but is more about a group of people that extends far beyond SCO and Microsoft that view the GPL and other Free Software licensing as a threat to thier way of life and thier controll over sections of the ecconomy.
To those of us who learned on Linux, and to those of us who have been using Linux for a very long time, Linux seems like an innocuous part of the computing landscape. But to the established software industry, (and to the publishing, media distribution, and entertainment industries) Linux and other Free and Open Source technologies are considered to be "Disruptive Technologies" that have the potential to change the landscape of "thier" portion of the economy.
Read, L
First off, we have the standard "some believe the GPL is in violation of the Constitution". W00t. Way to get as vague as possible and to point out that really only SCO (and perhaps Microsoft) believe this (oddly enough, to their benefit as a company).
Second, SCO's constant misrepresentation of the Free Software Foundation and the Open Source community in general is very disturbing.
Funny that the FSF itself defines proprietary as software whose use, redistribution, or modification is restricted or prohibited. I believe what Darl was trying to refer to was commercial software, which can easily derive profit and still be free. Damn, shot yourself in the foot there, eh Darl?
In reality, again, GPL'd software can derive profit from support contracts, installations, and the like. But nowhere in the GPL does it say that you should link in or otherwise include proprietary code; that's not the goal, the goal is to create BETTER code that does the same thing, and also happens to be free. Yes, perhaps it can "free" a source of income from a company which developed a proprietary alternative, but THAT'S BUSINESS, Darl. There's nothing in the constitution that can get you out of the fact that we live in a capitalist society and if you can't find a way to compete, get out of the business.
And then, of course, we get to SCO's main point of business, or "proof" that Open Source software is evil; code has been stolen from them and imported into Linux without authorization. For the last time, everyone is asking, WHAT code, and WHERE is it? We will replace it! There's a whole community ready to fix any wrongdoings inside Linux in the blink of an eye. Oh, but wait, telling that would be "freeing" you of your litigation profit stream. I apologize.
Free or low-cost [ed. contradicted yourself there] Open Source software, full of proprietary code
And a second contradiction to round out that paragraph.
Because of a number of reasons. First and foremost, if they have the superior software, they will continue to own the market. You think Adobe and Photoshop are suffering a lot due to The GIMP? Secondly, because "freeing" software doesn't mean stealing it, even though you blatantly infer that. If any new software is put into Linux, it's either already been released free by its ORIGINAL developer, or it's code that volunteers have created, all their own. There are no bad-faith copyright violations in Linux because nobody knew about SCO's IP "rights" in the first place, and we still don't!
Hehe... coming from SCO... hehehe.
The rest of it is BS, mostly (national security?), so I'll leave it at that. Really though, SCO should present something a bit more substantial if they want us to think they're anything more than moneygrubbing lawyers.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Dear Senator/Representative:
While I have not read the letter from SCO disparaging the GPL (after all, this is Slashdot), let's discuss for a moment what the proprietary software market has done.
When you purchase Microsoft Office, your check for $350 goes to Redmond, Washington. Ditto for everyone else in your state who buys a Microsoft product.
When you pay a consultant to install OpenOffice for you, your money (probably) stays in your state.
If you would like your constituents' money to remain in your state, then you should support the GPL.
If you are a Senator/Representative from the state of Washington, well, tough luck.
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.
"When a fellow Mormon is mentioned in the media I usually feel excitement for the accomplishments of that person. However Darl McBride's behavior is hardly something to feel pride over. I feel his business ethics are questionable and embarrassing to his religious community. I hope no further reference in the media will be made to Darl McBride and his religion for the sake of all Mormons."
Actually he's not an embarrasement. He's a joke. There is something called "ex-communication" in the Mormon church. By going against the church teachings he is basically pushing himself into a position of facing this.
Oh and there are Temple recommends. Basically one of the questions for a church Temple recommend asks "Have you been honest with your fellow man?". This is just one of many questions that Daryl will face as he is grilled by his Bishop (original or extra crispy?). Since this is very public, I doubt he could lie and get away with it. I feel sorry for the guy. He basically proves that some people will do anything for money. Even sell his own soul
(Sorry for the OT.. read the article refered and couldn't let it alone)
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
Come on, SCO. We know, we know. Here's a blanket, you poor, poor man. Have some hot coffee, and a nice warm plate of turkey and gravy. You remember Linus? Your social worker? We were all worried about you. We heard you yelling and carrying on. Linus is glad to see you.
"He's full of... LIES! He's one of them!"
There, there. Linus is your friend, remember? He gave you all that nice Open Source medication--
"Tried to POISON me, he DID! He, he stole those magic pills from ME! You hear me? ARF ARF! Call the guards! Guards! Help me, this man POISONED ME!"
I understand. You're cold and confused. Off your medication. There, there... we'll make it all better. Now, hand me that butter knife, put poor Mrs. User down, and we'll have a nice chat..."
"LIES! ALL LIES! I'LL SUE YOU ALL!!!"
Oh dear. Well, he'll go to sleep eventually. Just keep an eye on him so he doesn't hurt any of the the others, and he'll be fine. Mrs. User, can you just be patient and humor him for a while? He's had a bad business deal, and he's all out of sorts.
"SCO Senior Vice President Chris Sontag said there are millions of lines of offending code involved and that it's highly unlikely the matter could be resolved by removing that code."
yet in this letter, Darl is only claiming *thousands*: "I find this particularly galling because that Linux software contains thousands of lines of my company's proprietary UNIX code..."
Gee, I guess the magnitude of the issue has just be cranked down by 3 orders of magnitude -- the claimed infraction is now just 0.1% of the original claim. Do you think we will see SCO adjusting the $3B claim on IBM down to $3M ?
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.)
I've really been thinking about why this situation is so frustrating to me, personally. I think at the bottom of the whole thing is how I feel about Linux, Open Source, and the whole Gnu project. They are each examples of the power of the little guy. I mean this not in the sense of "little guy vs. big corporation," but rather the ability of one person to have a literal positive impact on the whole world. I don't make my OS a religion, but I'm definitely proud to be a Linux and open source user. I feel as though I'm supporting those who are driven to make the world a better place by using their skills. I remember reading an interview with Don Knuth several years ago. He said (paraphrasing from memory), "we had a sense in those days that we were advancing civilization with our work. Money wasn't a part of it." That sentiment had a profound impact on me, and I like to think that's the prevailing sentiment in the world of open source. When viewed from that perspective, SCO and its arguments seem less than petty. So there it is, for me anyway: it's SCO (who want to save themselves and their bank accounts) vs. people who are making the world better.
- It ties the "problem" to all the issues that either party is trying to make the focus of the presidential campaign.
- It truthfully identifies open-source software as "controversial"... which is true, but only because they (and Microsoft and a few others) are making it so.
- It describes the movement (OSS), identifies an I've-heard-of-that example to establish that it's real (Linux), and links them together as "Open Source Linux". (Like Communism and Russia became "Communist Russia".)
- It then ties the entire thing to one of the fathers of the movement (Stallman) and equates the whole of it with his ideology, which - as is typically the case of founding ideologues - is a bit more radical than bulk of those who (vaugely) follow in his wake. Like connecting any Communist state or Socialist party to Marx, or to Lenin.)
- Likewise, it disparages the GPL by referring to "copyleft", associating it with "leftists" and implying to those without a grasp of geek irony that it seeks to annihilate copyright rather than (in the minds of many advocates) balance it.
- It uses words like "abetted" and "scheme" with their sinister, criminal overtones.
- It even uses the "some believe" construct, which passes something that should be tagged "IMHO" as if it were a commonly-held viewpoint. "Some believe that the moon is made of cheese," is true... but so what?
- And for good measure, it tosses in SCO's unproven allegations about theft of code as if they were admissable evidence.
Joe McCarthy would have been proud to read this from the Senate floor.**That's my own bit of demagoguery.
When you appeal to their paranoias ( loss of taxes, homeland security, etc ) you set things up for another DMCA type of bill, but with a goal to effectively ban OSS projects.
Don't laugh.. they can do it.. Regardless of how stupid it might be, or how impractical it would be to enforce.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
The US needs to be on the bus ASAP IMHO. If anything threatens the US economy its guys like this who use money, influence and dirty tricks to maintain the status quo. It didnt work for the British Empire did it?
I wish at was Friday, but I dont want to wish my life away. So I wish it was last Friday.
And IBM has lobbyists too, plus they could easily donate the entire value of SCO to political campaigns if they wanted to.
But what would anyone really want with 47 cents worth of stock options?
Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
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
I've seen the following passage attributed to Heinlein, and quoted in various blogs and pages, and I thought it fit perfectly here:
"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
Appropriate, I think, as it sounds like SCO is trying to get the government to mandate profitability for SCO.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
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.
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").
You are yet another one of millions of people who just don't get it. IN COURT they defined 'sexual relations' as COITUS, Bill Clinton DID NOT HAVE COITUS with that women, so he had to say "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" when in court - otherwise he would have actually been commiting perjury.
Right now i'm twenty.. this issue happened in what.. 1997? I would have been what was it... 13 and I understood this at that time.
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
"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?