Slashdot Mirror
Darl Goes to Harvard
colinmc151 writes "Both Groklaw and Internet News are reporting on the visit made to Harvard University by Darl McBride, SCO president and CEO, and Chris Sontag SCO senior vice president. Darl and Chris made a presentation titled 'Defending Intellectual Property Rights in a Digital Age'. One protester gave out copies of Linux to all that attended. Bottom line SCO plans to carry on with the lawsuits. Best line was one student who when Darl asked if he was impacted by MyDoom.A e-mail virus answered 'No, I use Linux'." One MIT student has a write-up of the event as well...
Seems like the MIT students did a nice job putting him on the spot, but it's obvious that ol' Darl is pretty adept at deflecting any criticism or challenging questions and changing the subject when he finds the current one uncomfortable.
What will it take to get him to address all the contradictory statements and lies that he and his cohorts seem to spout at every opportunity?
Perhaps it's time to try to get that court date pushed up
Go to Harvard, spread FUD, gain support from future investors/business people and hope they support SCO in the future, if SCO is still around.
Daryl doesn't seem to be aware that his public comments may impact the trial. It's like the guy genuinely doesn't care about th eendgame as many here have observed.
It must be pretty frustrating for Linux contributors to be attacked by a guy who is using the fruits of their labors on his own Linux system.
We should organize more protests involving the giving away of free software.
Now if they threw pig blood at them it would've made mainstream news. But something good and worthwhile to humanity? that's not news
*DrugCheese rants*
Lowest stock price for SCOX since August 2003.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SCOX
At $13.54 at time of this posting, and has even gone down so low as $13.18 for the day range.
-Joshua
I thought that the whole point of open source is so nobody can take the software, change it, and then sell it as their own. I thought any changes made became the property of the project, for everyone to use.
For example, in the GPL it states:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Funny, I use Linux too, and nevertheless mydoom affects me substantially. for example, my ISP's mail servers are slow as hell because of this crap. So slow, that I couldn't even get to my mail for much of today.
"..claims that a member of the linux community claimed that a high-level linux hacker was responsible for at least one of the attacks (I'd love to see that citation). "
- 08 -25-010-26-NW-CY-LL&tbovrmode=3
This was Eric Raymond acting as self appointed champion and bull in a china shop during an earlier attack.
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2003
Personally I think Eric Raymond is a darned fool for saying 'we' etc as if this was a community effort. Eric saying he's ashamed for us all plays right into SCO's hands. This was not the community, it was one lone criminal acting for themselves. Presenting it as something else is both inaccurate and damaging.
I got this off of the SCOX yahoo board:
'Electronic terror' in Linux's shadow
You'll find this about 2/3 of the way through the article:
And they call the Linux community fanatical! :)
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
Well, let's be clear, there will be a loser: Microsoft. They're obviously behind this for two reasons:
1. The bulk of SCO's funding since the beginning of the lawsuit has been from Microsoft
2. Microsoft has softened their public FUD about linux. They're trying to let someone else play bad cop because they know when they criticize linux unfairly it makes others jump to the defense of linux AND blame Microsoft- when someone else does it for them, the first still happens but the second does not.
It's obvious to informed observers, but not to the press.
The winner so far seems to have been Novell though - people are beginning to see that they are being unfairly maligned, their stock has been climbing like gangbusters.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
I really wish that when Darl stated that the GPL hadn't been tested in court, someone had pointed out that neither had SCO's assertions.
At least one argument they're using against the GPL can be used against the claim that anyone should pay them $699 per CPU.
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
I was blown away when someone asked him (paraphrased): If you believe the GPL license is unconstitutional, what right then do you have to distribute SAMBA in your products.
At this they said (again paraphrasing): Samba is good, we dont believe that Samba is tainted in any way.
They did not answer in any way what right they have to distribute Samba if they believe that the GPL is invalid. If the GPL is proven invalid (unlikely), it does not mean that the work suddenly becomes public domain. They cant seem to admit to the fact that they are basically screwed either way.
I would highly doubt that SCO could come up with a clean room implementation of the SMB protocol in any reasonable span of time that they could incorporate into their products. And imagine the reduced value of an SCO OS platform if it did not have open source tools like samba embedded.
I would cherish the day that Darl & Co goes up to the Samba developers to negotiate a seperate license and those developers tell them to go to hell. They will never do this even if it is shown that they have no right to distribute Samba because their core business is no longer software development, but litigation.
The Ro Factor - Jeep/Linux Weblog