SCO is trying to claim ownership of any and all Unix-like code. Every line in *all* versions of any open source software has a known pedigree. SCO refuses to reveal the allegedly infringing code because any code they could possibly point to has already seen the light of day and its pedigree could be established within hours. Refusing to point out the code is a smoke screen to buy time. What SCO plans to do is wordsmith the meaning of the word *derivative.*
First of all they'll claim that *ownership* of the software product never transfered. Second, they'll say only permission to use the software product *and* its derivatives was granted. Third, they're going to claim that since ownership never transferred and only permission to use was granted they retain ownership in any derivative or derivative-like product. Finally, where placement of code into an opensource project was approved, they'll claim that transfer of ownership was never granted, only the right of use.
They will try to broaden the meaning of derivative works to include everything imaginable and narrow the effect/implications of placing the code in opensource projects. They're going to try to undermine the legitimacy of the GPL and using the DMCA claim massive infringment. If the court buys it, it's over.
An RIAA executive said this new "John Doe" process would be more intrusive for individuals, not less, since the organization would no longer be able to contact potential lawsuit targets and settle before filing an official suit.
Any suit can be settled "out of court," so to speak, prior to the judge banging his gavel.
Kazaa's owners, Sharman Networks, is showing the OpenSource community the way to win this P2P file sharing war with the RIAA & MPAA. It would behoove us to pay attention. The OpenSource community should imitate their ad campaign. It would be money well spent. The sooner this war is politicised the better. The only way Congress is going to pay attention to our conserns is when it begins to cost them politically. Ad campaigns are by far the surest way to get their attention.
Re:SCO's business plan
on
SCO Roundup
·
· Score: 1
Pam Jones at Groklaw did some fascinating research into who may be funding SCO.
It seems that that Integral Capital Management companies as of this August own a total of 1,360,000 shares in SCO.
Drugstore.com's 10Q, their most recent one, just filed this month, is another company Integral has invested in heavily.
Melinda French Gates was just elected a director of Drugstore.com.
Pam points out:
As of last December, Integral Capital Management V didn't own any SCO stock, according to this SEC filing. They did own Microsoft stock back in November. But they didn't the previous May of 2002. So the chain of investment timeline appears to go like this: First, they invested in Drugstore.com, then Microsoft, and then in SCO.
It looks like ESR's rant brought all the PHB's, english majors, prissy eti'cut types, and SCO/M$ shills out of the woodwork wrinkling their cute little noses selfrighteously scolding him.
ESR probably forgot more code that the whole damn bunch ever wrote.
Well, near as I can tell, as long as all them SCO-Linux license purchasers keep their licenses stacked-up close to the crapper and don't include em in any distro, they should be OK.
This is indeed great news. Now perhaps the OpenSource community can get behind this effort to politicise itself and vigorously advocate where it most counts, the halls of the U.S. Congress.
In its statment of principles and purpose, the OSAIA states:
Business, government and private individuals must be free to choose software and technologies that best suit their needs, independent of the methodologies or licenses used in their development.
The marketplace must be free of prejudice against open source software, whether through law, regulation, defamation or other means. OSAIA will act to achieve this goal."
This is a good start. The CCIA boasts a formidable stable of memebers including AOL, Kodak, Oracle, Fujitsu, Verizon, Yahoo and others.
There are several good resources on the web that are acting as clearinghouses for information that can be drawn upon as resources in this fight. Notably are TWikIWeThey , the Open Source Initiative , the Free Software Foundation.
Numerous weblogs are available as resources most notably Groklaw. Pam has amassed an incredible wealth of links and facts surrounding the SCO v IBM issue. Another good site for legal info is the Daily Whirl which is a legal blog site index devoted to lawyers for lawyers covering among other subjects, copyright. GrepLaw and A Copy Fighter's Musings are two good places to start.
Finally, for those of you who want to develop good arguments against intellectual monopolies visit Boldrin and Levine's, Intellectual Property Page.
Q: Are you counter-suing Red Hat, or just considering it? A: Delaware case coming to trial in 2005 A: IBM case has a court date of April 11, 2005
How can he possibly 'know' that the RedHat trial will be in 2005? The request for a hearing for a "permanant injunction" has not even been given a date. That hearing should come within a month or two. SCO may not make it out of that encounter.
Man-o-man! Talk about brinkmanship.
Folks, what you have here is the worst kind of pariah. If the community fails to quickly destroy it, the whole community runs the risk of becoming infested. The more jurisdictions SCO has to fight in the greater the probability it can be iradicated.
Little has been said regarding the "Public Good" open source code and the open source movement represents. Now is the time for the community to begin discussing the ways in which open source represents the purest embodiment of a public good.
C'mon guys, get off yer dead asses. Do you all need a written invitation? If so consider this to be it.
Well to begin with Open Source represents competition. Not only straight forward competition as with other proprietary products but, particularly with prducts that much can't be done with to get them out of the way. Open source programs can't be bought and burried as Symantic did with Tiny Software. It can't be bought and integrated, in part or in whole, with an existing proprietary software because of licensing issues. Even with BSD code there are irritating strings attached.
Worst of all open source software is superior in many if not most cases. It's also taking up market share that previously was the domaine of the proprietary shop.
But there is another aspect of open source development that will motivate closed shops to come together to develop open source techniques. That is the power of sheer numbers to develop and work the bugs out of a product, quickly and efficiently. To thoroughly vet the code in minimal time so as to get it out on the market as soon as possible and yet achieve max customer satisfaction.
The fact that there are sometimes hundreds and even thousands of users *using* a program in real world environments give open source an unsurmountable edge over closed source development approaches. Not only are other developers using the program but also there are many more like me who do not participate in development but who use the programs providing feedback.
The open source development environment can't even be matched by Microsoft but, a consortium like Open Group could if they can over come their secretive natures and their natural unwillingness to share resources. And, yes, their manic desire diferentiate where no difference exists.
There are other reasons why Open Group will come toghther and 'deal' with the open source threat. Self preservation is the main one. Controlling the development environment and even putting open source off the stage would be most strategic. I have absolutely no doubt that that will be the eventual goal of Open Group.
Then again there is SCO Group. They think they've worked out the legal approach to get their arms around open source first.
To set the backdrop, consider Signature Financial Corporation.(1998) I put a snippit blow which I cut-n-pasted from an article by Eric Vance entitled "Patenting Business Practices," written for PrarieLaw.com which will demonstrate the fesability.
" Signature Financial Corporation, which provided financial custodial services, sought patent protection for a computer program that allowed the bank to perform currency conversions of various equity investments and provide a daily report that calculated the share price. The Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) issued the patent, which State Street Bank, a competing bank, subsequently challenged.
The trial court invalidated the patent, as many had expected, but a federal appeals court eventually upheld it. The appellate court's recognition of the patent set off a stampede of entrepreneurs seeking to patent their proprietary business methods, including many computer programs that, like Signature Financial's, produced a "tangible output." "
Now consider open source program development as a business practice/model. As the open source community is structured now it's not very amenable to for-profit business entities as it is nearly impossible to make money selling open source software but, it does it produce a "tangible output."
Companies like RedHat use this tangible output to sell services by adding some window dressing and then forcing commercial users to purchase a "service agreement" with each copy they run. You could strip their deal out of the code but, they remind you that the program probably won't work if you do, so you can't really copy and distribute the product.
Many programmers use their open source work as a 'business card' to leverage good employment situations. They'll never likely, however, ever become the next Bill Gates tyring to sell the software they develop.
That being said however, open source 'makes very, very good software.' The methods, practices, approaches, techniques the community uses are legendary. I'll not go into how as Perrens and Ray and others shed sufficient light on the matter. But how do you get your arms around the monster and how do you make it proprietary? Extend and embrace.
Enter Bruce and his buddies at Open Group. Create pseudo-OpenForge, mimic SourceForge, use free open source talant to make it work, hope SourceForge goes under and the community surrounding it fragments, and then once profitable call it a business practice and patent it. Open source talant no longer needed, thank you. Oh, and by the way your infringing on *my* patent and I want royalties and all the rest. So stop what you're dong.
The rest will be a very sad tale unless the community politicises itself and is willing to flex its muscle.
What most don't seem to grasp is the fact that Bruce's plan is but another variation of MicroSoft's "extend and embrace" (not encompass as I used in another post...bad philtr) Only in this senario the flow of benifit is from the Open Source community and to the Open Group and not visa versa.
The Open Group will take what it can from Open Source, patent it and/or copyright it and then turn around bust the Open Source community in the chops and inform it that it can non longer do what it does because of patent violations and copyright infringment.
Lets face it open source is better and cheaper software than the product produced by closed source, hands down.
A good example is can be found at IBM. Perry Hartswick, IBM Manager of 300mm Systems, reports that, "we set up three machines communicating to three pieces of equipment, using the same tool communication application on Red Hat 7.2 Linux and Windows NT/2000. We used the same setup for all six applications, and then we began a planned 90 day test. The plan was to run the applications and look at errors, performance degradation, maintenance requirements, and any other issue that might pop up."
He goes on to say, "The results were striking. The best run we had with the Windows machines was approximately six to seven days before we began to see noticeable performance degradation, and in about ten days we had a service interruption."
He also says, "The Linux servers, on the other hand, ran without incident for the full 90 days. There were no performance degradations, interrupts or required maintenance. In fact, just for fun, we kept the Linux experiment running to see what would happen. We finally shut it off after 5 months, and it was still running like a clock."
What's it going to take for Open Source here in the US to follow Open Source Victoria's lead? OSV has filed a complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, its version of the Securities and Excange Commission.
This organization has politicized itself and states on its web site that "OSV is a marketing, advocacy and focus group, which aims to raise the profile of Open Source Software (OSS) in Victoria." Here 'advocacy' is the key concept.
C'mon guys, get it together. Cryin time's over. Time to play smashmouth.
The DMCA was signed into law by Clinton in '98. It took the legislation at least a year to wind its way through Congress. It was fought over for several years before it was introduced. So I suspect that the graybeards among us knew or at least suspected what would come down the pike if adopted.
Companies like SCO will eventually do what the RIAA and MPAA and its membership are doing first assaulting ISP's (the conduit/market channel) using the DMCA's subpoena authority and then going after end users (the market.) DirectTV is now engaged in a campaign of legal extortion going after hardware resellers, getting their customer lists, then contacting anyone who purchased the wrong kind of hardware from these sellers informing these people they can avoid litigation and settle their claim by sending them $3,500.
RIAA is putting a similar campaign in place serving subpoenas on ISPs to get names and addresses which too will be followed by letters of settlement. ISP's fortunately are somewhat protected by safeharbor provisions of the DMCA. Not so software distributors.
The DMCA will allow companies like SCO to eventually go after end users also in much the same manner as the RIAA and MPAA and their membership are doing with music and movies users. They will assault the distributors/channel first and then the end users/market.
Their main interest is revenue stream which will bank roll ever more assaults. The cost benefit ration is dramataiclly tipped in their favor. Secure the market channel, monopolize the market and then go after the end user. After all where is the poor schmuck going to go?
By now it should be obvious why the hacker community should politicise and support its favorite EFF, OSI or FSF. *We* are the system and if we're "broke down" then the system won't work. To date as near as I can tell we're nothing but a bunch of "broke dicks" whining, bitching and sniveling about that bad, bad SCO but, clearly lacking the balls to do something 'constructive' about it.
The EFF, OSI and FSF are in desperate need of funding. *We* can help out there. Legislators are in despeate need of being educated. *We* can definitely help out there too. A courteous phone call or thoughtfull personal letter are two excellent mechanisms. There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of us and only one SCO.
Absolutely refusing to give in to SCO's attempts at extortion is critical. Turning off the flow of money to SCO is going to be a key element in any counter strategy. Forcing SCO to sue someone other than IBM and for copyright infringement will signal the start of SCO's demise. Flooding the victim with cash to take on SCO will be essential.
IANAL but, Linus really can't do anything because he hasn't been injured yet by SCO's behavior. The first time SCO successfully extorts money from a either a distributor or an end user then his status will change as will the distributor and end user. SCO will have violated the GPL attached to his/our/their code.
The SYSTEM only protects those who have money and influence. (I suspect you like me have neither) That should be obvious to you and anyone who has a passing interest in the history of law in this country. If Mr. Green fails to show Mr. Esquire walks leaving you flat on your butt.
I could go on and on but, I think/hope you get the idea. We have to become activists if we going to ever hope to counter the harmful effects of the DMCA and pariahs like SCO who use this poorly written peice of law. The future of technology use and its viability demands it of us.
There is no line. In fact the Open Source movement has failed miserably to draw any sort of line because it has failed to organize itself and politicise the environment. Once it does, then and only then will there be any chance of stopping SCO. Bitch all you want but, you only have yourselves to balme.
SCO is trying to tell you that its ultimate aim is to get its arms around Linux. They're doing so by claiming ownership of derrivitave works (claiming anyting that looks remotely like Unix) using terms such as "techniques, methods, approaches, ideas, etc" to assert their claims.
Ever since the Pattent Office has begun to give patent licenses for ideas, methods techniques, et al there has been a push on by companies to litigate in ernest. And the courts have been validating this nonsense for the past six or seven years. This will continue untill the Supreme Court reigns them in or Congress passes clarifiying legislation.
Your life is going to be a living hell for the next few years. Companies are paying attention to SCO's methods of legal extortion and they will follow suit. Be assured of that.
Well I guess if it hasn't dawned on you luminaries we have yet another parasitic pariah in our midst. This scourge will spread infecting all it comes in to contact with, sucking the very life out of its victims.
It must be isolated and killed. It must be treated like a horrific disease no less than the likes of cancer or HIV.
This monstrous disease lives and insidudously spreads by forcing its victims to feed it much like a hookworm. Fortunately we have medicine for parasitic pariah's like this.
This medicine must be applied knowing all along it will be hard but it must be done if we ever hope to remove the disease and avoid further infection.
The first step will be to acknowledge that it is indeed a disease and its existance is not in society's best interest. The mind set is what is important. This disease must be isolated and destroyed.
The next step is to stop feeding it. Do whatever you have to but, cut off its food supply. It will be hard and may take time as two other established parasitic pariah's have helped fill its larders and it will be able to live off this food store for quite some time to come.
The third step is to liberally apply huge doses of a strong anti viral medicine. This will help the pariah use up its food and speed up its eventual destruction through starvation. There are many good doctors who know what medicine to apply and how to apply it. Contact them at your earliest convenience. Apply this medicine everywhere the paraih has spread its infectious disease being careful to avoid the locations where the infection is strongest as this location currenty favors its survival.
If you fail to take action now you will eventually either die a slow and unimaginably horrible death or be the never ending food source for this parasitic pariah.
Slashdot Mirror
SCO is trying to claim ownership of any and all Unix-like code. Every line in *all* versions of any open source software has a known pedigree. SCO refuses to reveal the allegedly infringing code because any code they could possibly point to has already seen the light of day and its pedigree could be established within hours. Refusing to point out the code is a smoke screen to buy time. What SCO plans to do is wordsmith the meaning of the word *derivative.*
First of all they'll claim that *ownership* of the software product never transfered. Second, they'll say only permission to use the software product *and* its derivatives was granted. Third, they're going to claim that since ownership never transferred and only permission to use was granted they retain ownership in any derivative or derivative-like product. Finally, where placement of code into an opensource project was approved, they'll claim that transfer of ownership was never granted, only the right of use.
They will try to broaden the meaning of derivative works to include everything imaginable and narrow the effect/implications of placing the code in opensource projects. They're going to try to undermine the legitimacy of the GPL and using the DMCA claim massive infringment. If the court buys it, it's over.
An RIAA executive said this new "John Doe" process would be more intrusive for individuals, not less, since the organization would no longer be able to contact potential lawsuit targets and settle before filing an official suit.
Any suit can be settled "out of court," so to speak, prior to the judge banging his gavel.
The important question is: Will MS try to 'patent' the Open Source software development method? Don't be surprised if they do.
Kazaa's owners, Sharman Networks, is showing the OpenSource community the way to win this P2P file sharing war with the RIAA & MPAA. It would behoove us to pay attention. The OpenSource community should imitate their ad campaign. It would be money well spent. The sooner this war is politicised the better. The only way Congress is going to pay attention to our conserns is when it begins to cost them politically. Ad campaigns are by far the surest way to get their attention.
Pam Jones at Groklaw did some fascinating research into who may be funding SCO.
It seems that that Integral Capital Management companies as of this August own a total of 1,360,000 shares in SCO.
Drugstore.com's 10Q, their most recent one, just filed this month, is another company Integral has invested in heavily.
Melinda French Gates was just elected a director of Drugstore.com.
Pam points out:
As of last December, Integral Capital Management V didn't own any SCO stock, according to this SEC filing. They did own Microsoft stock back in November. But they didn't the previous May of 2002. So the chain of investment timeline appears to go like this: First, they invested in Drugstore.com, then Microsoft, and then in SCO.
It's a good read.
It looks like ESR's rant brought all the PHB's, english majors, prissy eti'cut types, and SCO/M$ shills out of the woodwork wrinkling their cute little noses selfrighteously scolding him.
ESR probably forgot more code that the whole damn bunch ever wrote.
I realize this is a bit off topic but, Eric Raymond does a thoughtful analysis of the "smoking gun SCO Code. It is well worth the read.
As long as SCO-Linux licensees keep their licenses stacked up near the crapper and don't include same in any distros, they should be OK.
Well, near as I can tell, as long as all them SCO-Linux license purchasers keep their licenses stacked-up close to the crapper and don't include em in any distro, they should be OK.
SCO's code is already in the public domain. According to SCO.
Boldrin and Levine's, Intellecutal Property Page. Sorry for the mis-type.
CNet is running a peice on the Open Source And Industry Alliance an advocacy and lobbying group sponsored by the Computer & Communications Industry Association.
.
This is indeed great news. Now perhaps the OpenSource community can get behind this effort to politicise itself and vigorously advocate where it most counts, the halls of the U.S. Congress.
In its statment of principles and purpose, the OSAIA states:
Business, government and private individuals must be free to choose software and technologies that best suit their needs, independent of the methodologies or licenses used in their development.
The marketplace must be free of prejudice against open source software, whether through law, regulation, defamation or other means. OSAIA will act to achieve this goal."
This is a good start. The CCIA boasts a formidable stable of memebers including AOL, Kodak, Oracle, Fujitsu, Verizon, Yahoo and others.
There are several good resources on the web that are acting as clearinghouses for information that can be drawn upon as resources in this fight. Notably are TWikIWeThey , the Open Source Initiative , the Free Software Foundation.
Numerous weblogs are available as resources most notably Groklaw.
Pam has amassed an incredible wealth of links and facts surrounding the SCO v IBM issue. Another good site for legal info is the Daily Whirl which is a legal blog site index devoted to lawyers for lawyers covering among other subjects, copyright. GrepLaw and A Copy Fighter's Musings are two good places to start.
Finally, for those of you who want to develop good arguments against intellectual monopolies visit Boldrin and Levine's, Intellectual Property Page
Q: Are you counter-suing Red Hat, or just considering it?
A: Delaware case coming to trial in 2005
A: IBM case has a court date of April 11, 2005
How can he possibly 'know' that the RedHat trial will be in 2005? The request for a hearing for a "permanant injunction" has not even been given a date. That hearing should come within a month or two. SCO may not make it out of that encounter.
Man-o-man! Talk about brinkmanship.
Folks, what you have here is the worst kind of pariah. If the community fails to quickly destroy it, the whole community runs the risk of becoming infested. The more jurisdictions SCO has to fight in the greater the probability it can be iradicated.
Little has been said regarding the "Public Good" open source code and the open source movement represents. Now is the time for the community to begin discussing the ways in which open source represents the purest embodiment of a public good.
C'mon guys, get off yer dead asses. Do you all need a written invitation? If so consider this to be it.
Well to begin with Open Source represents competition. Not only straight forward competition as with other proprietary products but, particularly with prducts that much can't be done with to get them out of the way. Open source programs can't be bought and burried as Symantic did with Tiny Software. It can't be bought and integrated, in part or in whole, with an existing proprietary software because of licensing issues. Even with BSD code there are irritating strings attached.
Worst of all open source software is superior in many if not most cases. It's also taking up market share that previously was the domaine of the proprietary shop.
But there is another aspect of open source development that will motivate closed shops to come together to develop open source techniques. That is the power of sheer numbers to develop and work the bugs out of a product, quickly and efficiently. To thoroughly vet the code in minimal time so as to get it out on the market as soon as possible and yet achieve max customer satisfaction.
The fact that there are sometimes hundreds and even thousands of users *using* a program in real world environments give open source an unsurmountable edge over closed source development approaches. Not only are other developers using the program but also there are many more like me who do not participate in development but who use the programs providing feedback.
The open source development environment can't even be matched by Microsoft but, a consortium like Open Group could if they can over come their secretive natures and their natural unwillingness to share resources. And, yes, their manic desire diferentiate where no difference exists.
There are other reasons why Open Group will come toghther and 'deal' with the open source threat. Self preservation is the main one. Controlling the development environment and even putting open source off the stage would be most strategic. I have absolutely no doubt that that will be the eventual goal of Open Group.
Then again there is SCO Group. They think they've worked out the legal approach to get their arms around open source first.
May they live in interesting times.
To set the backdrop, consider Signature Financial Corporation.(1998) I put a snippit blow which I cut-n-pasted from an article by Eric Vance entitled "Patenting Business Practices," written for PrarieLaw.com which will demonstrate the fesability.
" Signature Financial Corporation, which provided financial custodial services, sought patent protection for a computer program that allowed the bank to perform currency conversions of various equity investments and provide a daily report that calculated the share price. The Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) issued the patent, which State Street Bank, a competing bank, subsequently challenged.
The trial court invalidated the patent, as many had expected, but a federal appeals court eventually upheld it. The appellate court's recognition of the patent set off a stampede of entrepreneurs seeking to patent their proprietary business methods, including many computer programs that, like Signature Financial's, produced a "tangible output." "
Now consider open source program development as a business practice/model. As the open source community is structured now it's not very amenable to for-profit business entities as it is nearly impossible to make money selling open source software but, it does it produce a "tangible output."
Companies like RedHat use this tangible output to sell services by adding some window dressing and then forcing commercial users to purchase a "service agreement" with each copy they run. You could strip their deal out of the code but, they remind you that the program probably won't work if you do, so you can't really copy and distribute the product.
Many programmers use their open source work as a 'business card' to leverage good employment situations. They'll never likely, however, ever become the next Bill Gates tyring to sell the software they develop.
That being said however, open source 'makes very, very good software.' The methods, practices, approaches, techniques the community uses are legendary. I'll not go into how as Perrens and Ray and others shed sufficient light on the matter. But how do you get your arms around the monster and how do you make it proprietary? Extend and embrace.
Enter Bruce and his buddies at Open Group. Create pseudo-OpenForge, mimic SourceForge, use free open source talant to make it work, hope SourceForge goes under and the community surrounding it fragments, and then once profitable call it a business practice and patent it. Open source talant no longer needed, thank you. Oh, and by the way your infringing on *my* patent and I want royalties and all the rest. So stop what you're dong.
The rest will be a very sad tale unless the community politicises itself and is willing to flex its muscle.
What most don't seem to grasp is the fact that Bruce's plan is but another variation of MicroSoft's "extend and embrace" (not encompass as I used in another post...bad philtr) Only in this senario the flow of benifit is from the Open Source community and to the Open Group and not visa versa.
The Open Group will take what it can from Open Source, patent it and/or copyright it and then turn around bust the Open Source community in the chops and inform it that it can non longer do what it does because of patent violations and copyright infringment.
Lets face it open source is better and cheaper software than the product produced by closed source, hands down.
A good example is can be found at IBM. Perry Hartswick, IBM Manager of 300mm Systems, reports that, "we set up three machines communicating to three pieces of equipment, using the same tool communication application on Red Hat 7.2 Linux and Windows NT/2000. We used the same setup for all six applications, and then we began a planned 90 day test. The plan was to run the applications and look at errors, performance degradation, maintenance requirements, and any other issue that might pop up."
He goes on to say, "The results were striking. The best run we had with the Windows machines was approximately six to seven days before we began to see noticeable performance degradation, and in about ten days we had a service interruption."
He also says, "The Linux servers, on the other hand, ran without incident for the full 90 days. There were no performance degradations, interrupts or required maintenance. In fact, just for fun, we kept the Linux experiment running to see what would happen. We finally shut it off after 5 months, and it was still running like a clock."
No wonder IBM is excited about Linux, Nuff said.
I believe your right. That's what happens when fingers out pace brain...heheh
My first impression of Bruce's draft is that it's merely another version of MicroSoft's strategy of extend and encompass.
Bruce seems to fail to understand that Open Group needs Open Source more than Open Source needes Open Group.
I never realized Bruce was so arrogant.
Go to:r .shtm l
http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/news/semiconducto
Should give you a lot of ammo.
What's it going to take for Open Source here in the US to follow Open Source Victoria's lead? OSV has filed a complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, its version of the Securities and Excange Commission.
This organization has politicized itself and states on its web site that "OSV is a marketing, advocacy and focus group, which aims to raise the profile of Open Source Software (OSS) in Victoria." Here 'advocacy' is the key concept.
C'mon guys, get it together. Cryin time's over. Time to play smashmouth.
The DMCA was signed into law by Clinton in '98. It took the legislation at least a year to wind its way through Congress. It was fought over for several years before it was introduced. So I suspect that the graybeards among us knew or at least suspected what would come down the pike if adopted.
Companies like SCO will eventually do what the RIAA and MPAA and its membership are doing first assaulting ISP's (the conduit/market channel) using the DMCA's subpoena authority and then going after end users (the market.) DirectTV is now engaged in a campaign of legal extortion going after hardware resellers, getting their customer lists, then contacting anyone who purchased the wrong kind of hardware from these sellers informing these people they can avoid litigation and settle their claim by sending them $3,500.
RIAA is putting a similar campaign in place serving subpoenas on ISPs to get names and addresses which too will be followed by letters of settlement. ISP's fortunately are somewhat protected by safeharbor provisions of the DMCA. Not so software distributors.
The DMCA will allow companies like SCO to eventually go after end users also in much the same manner as the RIAA and MPAA and their membership are doing with music and movies users. They will assault the distributors/channel first and then the end users/market.
Their main interest is revenue stream which will bank roll ever more assaults. The cost benefit ration is dramataiclly tipped in their favor. Secure the market channel, monopolize the market and then go after the end user. After all where is the poor schmuck going to go?
By now it should be obvious why the hacker community should politicise and support its favorite EFF, OSI or FSF. *We* are the system and if we're "broke down" then the system won't work. To date as near as I can tell we're nothing but a bunch of "broke dicks" whining, bitching and sniveling about that bad, bad SCO but, clearly lacking the balls to do something 'constructive' about it.
The EFF, OSI and FSF are in desperate need of funding. *We* can help out there. Legislators are in despeate need of being educated. *We* can definitely help out there too. A courteous phone call or thoughtfull personal letter are two excellent mechanisms. There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of us and only one SCO.
Absolutely refusing to give in to SCO's attempts at extortion is critical. Turning off the flow of money to SCO is going to be a key element in any counter strategy. Forcing SCO to sue someone other than IBM and for copyright infringement will signal the start of SCO's demise. Flooding the victim with cash to take on SCO will be essential.
IANAL but, Linus really can't do anything because he hasn't been injured yet by SCO's behavior. The first time SCO successfully extorts money from a either a distributor or an end user then his status will change as will the distributor and end user. SCO will have violated the GPL attached to his/our/their code.
The SYSTEM only protects those who have money and influence. (I suspect you like me have neither) That should be obvious to you and anyone who has a passing interest in the history of law in this country. If Mr. Green fails to show Mr. Esquire walks leaving you flat on your butt.
I could go on and on but, I think/hope you get the idea. We have to become activists if we going to ever hope to counter the harmful effects of the DMCA and pariahs like SCO who use this poorly written peice of law. The future of technology use and its viability demands it of us.
There is no line. In fact the Open Source movement has failed miserably to draw any sort of line because it has failed to organize itself and politicise the environment. Once it does, then and only then will there be any chance of stopping SCO. Bitch all you want but, you only have yourselves to balme.
SCO is trying to tell you that its ultimate aim is to get its arms around Linux. They're doing so by claiming ownership of derrivitave works (claiming anyting that looks remotely like Unix) using terms such as "techniques, methods, approaches, ideas, etc" to assert their claims.
Ever since the Pattent Office has begun to give patent licenses for ideas, methods techniques, et al there has been a push on by companies to litigate in ernest. And the courts have been validating this nonsense for the past six or seven years. This will continue untill the Supreme Court reigns them in or Congress passes clarifiying legislation.
Your life is going to be a living hell for the next few years. Companies are paying attention to SCO's methods of legal extortion and they will follow suit. Be assured of that.
First IBM, then Linux. Can MicroSoft be far behind?
Well I guess if it hasn't dawned on you luminaries we have yet another parasitic pariah in our midst. This scourge will spread infecting all it comes in to contact with, sucking the very life out of its victims.
It must be isolated and killed. It must be treated like a horrific disease no less than the likes of cancer or HIV.
This monstrous disease lives and insidudously spreads by forcing its victims to feed it much like a hookworm. Fortunately we have medicine for parasitic pariah's like this.
This medicine must be applied knowing all along it will be hard but it must be done if we ever hope to remove the disease and avoid further infection.
The first step will be to acknowledge that it is indeed a disease and its existance is not in society's best interest. The mind set is what is important. This disease must be isolated and destroyed.
The next step is to stop feeding it. Do whatever you have to but, cut off its food supply. It will be hard and may take time as two other established parasitic pariah's have helped fill its larders and it will be able to live off this food store for quite some time to come.
The third step is to liberally apply huge doses of a strong anti viral medicine. This will help the pariah use up its food and speed up its eventual destruction through starvation. There are many good doctors who know what medicine to apply and how to apply it. Contact them at your earliest convenience. Apply this medicine everywhere the paraih has spread its infectious disease being careful to avoid the locations where the infection is strongest as this location currenty favors its survival.
If you fail to take action now you will eventually either die a slow and unimaginably horrible death or be the never ending food source for this parasitic pariah.