Slashdot Mirror
Darl & SCO Overview
HAL9OOO writes "I found an article that as well as giving a good overview of "SCO - The Story So Far" also provides an interesting insight into the character of a certain Mr Darl McBride Esq."
It's a fairly lengthy article providing a lot of insight. Necessary reading to anyone new the SCO/Linux thing, and recommended to anyone who just wants some interesting details on SCOs position on the whole thing.
At first I wanted IBM to bury SCO in court, but now I wish they would just buy hem out to get this over with.
Hrm... even if she's right and it's not some strange conincidence, is there old BSD code in Linux? That should be checkable.
That should be free and clear copyright-wise, but System 5 could well have the same BSD code (quite possibly orignally stolen from BSD).
BSD Lite code is allowed in Linux friedn under the terms of the previous case of System V..as that was the agreement to settle the case..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
"Filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission show that SCO posted hundreds of millions in losses from 1994 to 2002."
Only a company like AOL could do that and stay in business.
Mod "Overrated" instead of replying "I disagree with you," you coward.
Not to be a troll or anything, but this is a really concise article, with both points of view. Face it people, most articles to date have been clearly biased pro/anti SCO, yes, even Forbes, the various hobbyist sites (even my own, check my sig and SCO Report). I'm not saying that's bad or anything, but the non-nerdy don't want to dive into specific details, they want a clear, concise view of things, and this article provides it. Perhaps it's done by SCO's hometown paper, but it still seems to be balanced reporting.
This is one repost I don't mind. If anyone asks you what this sco fiaSCO is about, you can direct them to this article.
IIRC the possible problems with the BSD settlement were that if USL had pushed ahead, they may have eventually lost far more than the settlement actually cost them.
An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of
I am sure you meant nothing by it, but lets see about another word for lunatic-attacking-something-which-you-don't agree-with other than jihad. Had you used the Christian word for this, 'crusade,' people might think you were be calling it a good thing. . .
What a world we are in when two words, meaning roughly the same, but for two different, closely linked languages, can imply two very different things.
My concern with all of this crap, is the fact that someone hasn't forced SCO to shut the hell up. It reminds me of the Bully in grade school. He would consistantly beat up on kids every day. Some even to the point of actual damage, and he was NEVER suspended. Never. Ever. I think that is what needs to be really focused on. Not so much as "When will all of this madness end?", but rather "How can we prevent this from ever getting this far, if history repeats itself?"
Also, from the article: "[Darl]I've been pounding the table here for a year or so saying there's no free lunch, and there is going to be a day of reckoning for every company that thinks they are going to try and sell a free model."
What is with this messianic attitude? Perhaps what Darl does not realize is that folks contribute to Linux and other open source projects through a variety of reasons. Notably, some contributions to open source have happened via tax-payer funded projects from a variety of nations throughout the world. Other contributions are made from the generous and charitable contributions of others who simply want to make a difference. Darl wants to exploit those contributions and leverage his band of merry lawyers to "liberate" Linux from the rest of us. Only his liberation is not for anything other than selfish desires (like any criminal who sees nothing wrong with theft) with no respect to the common good.
Darl has already stated that SCO believes there are unstated "problems" with the USL/BSD settlement.
Provide a link.
turn their guns on BSD.
1) That would be a one-sided violation of the old settlement. Judges don't like that. The public part of the wording assures people/companies that the matter was 'done', so making such a move would allow anyone who is re-selling a BSD based product standing. Think about a DOS of SCO via the legal system with 1000's of people suing....would SCO really want that?
2) SCO has stated in Answer 43 (or so) that BSD was not an issue WRT the Linux claims AND have offered a dollar reduction in Linux licenses if you moved to BSD.
"How can we prevent this from ever getting this far, if history repeats itself?"
In a lot of respects, SCO's behavior is a lot like that of James Taggert in Atlas Shrugged - especially when James got involved behind the scenes in attempting to profit from Francisco d'Anconia's Mexican mine venture.
(For those who aren't familiar with the work, the book was author Ayn Rand's "comprehensive" embodiement of her objectivism philosophy into a novel form. While objectivism has its issues and is certainly incomplete in many areas, it provides a contract philosophy basis that is probably best represented by the emergence of the open source world. In a nutshell, the only legitimate way for two people to interact is on the basis of trade, where each is receiving what they perceive as a legitimate and appropriate value for the trade. Coercion, extortation, theft (taking without a consensual trade), intimidation, etc. are all inappropriate forms).
This behavior is trivialized by calling it "bullying" (though the previous poster's intent was dead on). Recognized for what it is, Darl's behavior is profound parasitism, and all parasitism (which steals life from its host) is nothing more than a polite form of murder.
So what if Darl steals Linux, taking the livelihood away from thousands of rightful creators? So what if they go unemployed, unable to work on their creation without Darl's consent? So what if they lose that health insurance policy and cannot afford the prescription their children need? So what if they die?
Out of the tens of thousands of Linux-involved persons, the probability of death being caused by the success of Darl's quest is certain. Even the fear he has induced into the Linux world has had an effect - halting a Linux project here or there and causing honest people to remain unemployed.
No, the best clue to understanding Darl is this quote from the article:
"And SCO executives have even taken to traveling with bodyguards, a necessary measure, they say, given numerous death threats."
Most certainly "perceived numerous death threats." The funniest thing about the James Taggerts of the world is that as righteous as they may sound at times (as they pursue their nihlistic path), deep down they know they're nothing more than a worthless being that preys upon others. They recognize that eventually they will encounter a host that refuses to be consumed, and this paranoia manifests visibly in the hiring of bodyguards, personal security, defamation lawsuits, etc.
The solution? A GPL with teeth, backed by an open source community that aggressively funds their own legal defense foundation in order to firmly deal with predators and parasites like Darl.
It does, so does SCO have enough money to carry this out? I mean how long and how many appeals did the first Anti-Trust for MS take? Besides SCO vapor-evidance is still the big thing right now. I wish the media would tell Mr. Mc to STFU untill you produce the evidance on your own.
This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
Straight from the article:
:)
For months, SCO has encouraged users to take advantage of the promotional price, but there haven't been many takers.
"We haven't published the exact number yet," McBride said. "It's not in the dozens, but it's, you know, we've had some that have started to sign up."
This makes it sound like absolutely nobody has taken SCO up on their offer. Is there anyone here on Slashdot that will admit to it?
My blog
"We haven't published the exact number yet," McBride said. "It's not in the dozens, but it's, you know, we've had some that have started to sign up."
is that supposed to make sense?
Does one count as any?
Yes: "one" does couny as "any". Also, "some" counts as "any" -- although "some" is more that "one".
The part about "We haven't published the exact number yet" is particularly annoying. Surely McBride knows the exact number. And the word "yet" is supposed to clue us that SCO will publish the exact number. But I'm left with the impression that the exact number is an embarrassment to SCO. Indeed, the whole business of SCO litigation smells of embarrassment. I'm glad I'm not those guys -- humiliating myself in public for the sake of money.
-kgj
-kgj