If SCO "owns" a small fraction of a widely distributed whole, that whole in its entirety is SCO's property.
Even better--if SCO claims to own a small fraction of a widely distributed whole, that whole in its entirety is SCO's property.
There's an interesting historical parallel to this--the Pope "giving" the Spanish Empire a large chunk of North and South America during the European colonial period (not to mention all the claims staked by British, French, Dutch, and Portuguese explorers), despite there clearly being an existing population with arguably much more solid rights to the continent.*
Here's where the parallel gets scary--when the existing owners of the property resisted the aggression of the claimaints, the invaders wiped them out with sheer force and legal trickery.
I've gotta say, I've never been through one of these before, but I've learned a lot about survival prior to the age of ubiquitous electricity. I don't remember the 1998 Quebec ice storm blackout, as it didn't stretch to my home, and I don't remember what the 1989 solar flare-induced blackout was like.
I was slinging computer games when the power died. After clearing everyone from the store and locking down, we hung around the corridor with other sales jockeys before giving up and going home. Called the little lady on a landline, then started the long trek toward home. It's amazing how quickly people can self-organize when necessary--most of the intersections I passed were handled by volunteers directing traffic. Except for a few minutes around the really busy Yonge-Dundas intersection, traffic moved relatively normally. People actually obeyed random strangers because it needed to be done.
It's little surprise that thousands headed for the nearest source of alcohol. When nothing works, get hammered.
I'm amazed to recall that my first concern upon returning home was figuring out which foodstuffs were non-perishable and whether the water still worked. Since it's practically impossible (not to mention illegal) to build firepits in an urban area like Toronto, and finding spare coal or wood to burn is next to futile, I imagine I'd have been chewing on cereal if a variety store hadn't been nearby. I wonder what would happen if the power were to go away for more than a week...
Last thing that stood out for me--the sky, and the quiet! Without the constant background din of urban life--cars, air conditioners, televisions, lights, the hum of transmission lines--I could actually hear people thirty, fifty metres away. And the sky! Stars everywhere, and a bright moon that actually illuminated the ground enough for blind ol' me to figure out where I was going! For the first time, I truly understand the effects of light and noise pollution.
I'm going to be one of about a million people writing navel-gazing articles about life during this short throwback to the non-electric age, but I hope I don't forget what I realized over the past day. I think we'll have to reduce our reliance on technology in every aspect of life if we want to live sustainably anyway, so this was a good warm-up and wake-up call.
I also have some thoughts on modernizing the power grid (short version: distributed microgenerators and a diverse mixture of different generators, heavy on the renewables, saving the non-renewables for emergencies and shortfalls), but that's for another post. Right now, I'm just happy to have seen people visit with their neighbours and hang around outside for a few hours, something I don't see very often here in the big city.
It may become a question not only of which license applies, but also whether or not the code contributed to Linux was the same as the code that Sequent had or if it was a re-implementation of the patent that IBM holds.
The argument may eventually come down to whether 12-line chunks of code, reimplemented, are a copyright violation. It's not bloody likely that the Sequent-written multi-processor control code for Dynix would work in Linux were it simply dropped in wholesale, but it's quite possible, even probable, that chunks of code (perhaps even eighty lines long... hmmmm...) need to be similar, due to the nature of the Sequent implementation that IBM purchased along with the company.
My guess: SCO is claiming entire files are copyright violations, when in reality only certain small chunks of code are similar. Some files may be very close to source files from Dynix's multiproc implementation, due to factors common to multiproc-capable operating systems. If IBM can prove that the code written for Linux is based solely on a theoretical document with possible examples, and not actual Dynix source files, SCO is fucked, hard. SCO's complaint about "UNIX development methods" sounds like a reference to exploratory theoretical documents that some other posters said were written by a Sequent employee before such functionality was implemented in any OS. Unless there's something very wacky in Sequent's contract with AT&T that goes beyond handing source code rights over to the owner of SysV, SCO is desperately fishing for a case here, even more than before. This also demonstrates that their press releases are the stuff of pump-and-dump schemes, puffery and bluster about subject completely unrelated to what they're claiming in court.
At first, the details seem to possibly damn IBM for dropping code they didn't control into Linux, but IBM only has to prove the Linux code is simply a new implementation based on a source common to Dynix, AIX, and Linux--examples and theory documents.
Yet another price chart, yet another post
on
SCO Execs Dumping Stock
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Yahoo's 2-year chart, and the six-month chart. Cute how the stock goes nowhere until the company starts crying for a buyout, and if you cross-reference with the insider trades page I linked in the other post, you'll note that nothing takes place until after the lawsuit is filed and the stock starts leaping. Curious, that. Expected behaviour, perhaps, but given the exaggerated nature of SCO's anti-Linux campaign and the fact that the company hasn't actually tried to produce anything since Project Monterrey fell through, the rather ambitious automatic sale targets set by the execs sure make me wonder whether the execs can honestly say this is not a pump-and-dump operation. The fact that SCO's stock flirted with penny-stock status for about a year, combined with no output beyond a lawsuit and legal threats, would seem to reinforce that impression.
Based on the noticeable downturn in recent weeks, I'd lay good money that SCO's about to issue another Comical Ali-esque press release.
There's a noticeable blip during yesterday's trading where the stock price nosedives near $8, then goes back up to the trend, under heavy volume. I wonder what happened?
Also, this page is worth noting--insider trades! Some of them dumped two sets of stock on the same day under different titles. I dunno whether this is normal procedure, but it certainly looks curious.
One need only contrast, say, the metric system, the English system, and a system based on the size of the current king's foot to recognize this reality.
Nice apples-n-oranges comparison--you seem to be declaring that certain sources can be considered arbiters of objective truth and facts above all others. This is provably incorrect, as I will soon demonstrate.
You are the one that has lost your objectivity.
I never had objectivity--and neither have you, unless you're a noncorporeal force with no emotions or opinions. Objectivity is something journalists and other writers strive for, rarely (if ever) achieve, and use to attack each other while failing to acknowledge their own glass house. Sometimes, the internecine, dishonest sniping of media editors reminds me of the Scientology cult's methods regarding criticism: "Always attack, never defend".
Sometimes. Not always.
When you start saying phrases like "a collective that comes from economic or political demands," no wonder you think people cannot be objective. You're lost in your own mind and not making any measurements.
What does my use of certain phrases have to do with the possibility that people cannot achieve the complete objectivity, individually or collectively, that modern Western journalism claims to aspire to?
The facts are the facts. They happen. You do your best to report them by finding as much and placing value on time and relevence.
Thank you, Captain Obvious--did I acknowledge this in my own commentary, or did I not?
I should know. It's asshats like you that think that you can do my job better in five minutes than what has taken me years and thousands of hours to improve.
Five minutes? I've been working on this myself for several years now. Perhaps its not the decades and thousands of hours that you've taken, but I have to wonder if you're trying to hide from a basic reality of journalism because it conflicts with the values you have been told are central to your job. I may be wrong--but then, so could you.
I struggle with this every Monday and Tuesday morning on a regular basis, not to mention the times I deal with how to sift truth from piles of bullshit on an irregular basis. I've decided that I am biased, that I have opinions, that at the very least I will subconsciously allow those views to affect my output, and that even though I will try to correct exaggerations I must make clear my own views to the audience, so they can correct for their own ideological filters. The facts are sacrosanct, but the interpretation and presentation can differ, and will differ as I noted by comparing three different newspapers with consistently different portrayals of the same events, given the same published facts.
Journalism is a skill. It can be quantified by its innacurracies and other factors.
Correct. It is not, however, rocket science, or a task that should be limited to an anointed few who consider themselves and their reporting objective, failing to recognize that they cannot be completely objective by fact of participating at all in human society. A social version of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle could be developed here; a person cannot observe an event and transmit that information without having some influence on the event itself, either directly (something even many independent journalists consider a no-no), or indirectly through subconscious spin and massaging of information that goes on to affect the perceptions of other people. Again, best that this reality be acknowleged and corrected for as much as possible, by the writers, editors, and audience.
Some people (cough) think they know, when all they have are crackpot opinions, and think that the every journalist is FOX NEWS.
Yes, and some people create opinions of others based on incorrect or miscontextualized quotes and clips. Did I say that every journalist is Fox News, or that
For some time, I've participated in a couple parts of a widespread participatory journalism project. Since participatory journalism can be anything from an open publishing system with editor collectives, to someone's soapbox with a comment system, it's a bit hard for anyone to call themself an expert or something. With that said, I'd like to toss in a few thoughts drawn from my own experiences.
First, I haven't read the comments, but I suspect more than a few people will cry "but what about objectivity???" Objectivity does not exist. Everyone, every reporter, every editor, approaches a story from an angle, whether a personal one derived from years of experience, or a collective one that comes from economic or political demands. It is essential that independent writers report and analyse truthful information without exaggeration, but there must be an open acknowledgement that different sources will skew descriptions based on their own opinions. One need only contrast, say, the Toronto Star, the National Post, and Socialist Worker's description of the same events to recognize this reality.
I find that the best articles, in corporate, state, and independent media report the facts, then provide analysis based on the writer's stated or perceivable mental framework. Journalism seems at its best when the writers go beyond reporting, placing events in a greater context. Obviously, context can be selective, which makes the necessity of varied sources even more important. Falsehoods and exaggerations need to be called out and corrected. However, the focus on "objectivity" has become a fetish that very few news services really pay anything more than lip service to. Far too often, objectivity is used as a cover for inserting yet another editorial viewpoint to an article or deleting a disfavoured view (or even an uncomfortable fact). The most obvious example of this that pops into my head is Fox News' "Fair and Balanced" slogan, and you can probably come up with many more.
Second, open-publishing sites will be just as influenced by concerns outside of pure reporting as the New York Times or the Islamic Republic News Agency. Editorial collectives or individual editors will post features based on an overall point of view. I doubt anyone will ever see a feature praising neoconservatives on Ontario Indymedia; likewise, I will never expect to see a headline praising anarchists on Free Republic. If there are forums or open-publishing systems, the collective/editors will likely retain some kind of control over the system. Some kind of editing capability is necessary to deal with spam, flames disguised as news, repeated postings, false info, legally questionable things (some sites will be more anal than others regarding legalities), etc. I've found that comments are best left untouched, since the debate can be useful and enlightening, such as many high-score posts here.
I've participated in two editorial collectives. One tended toward a freewheeling attitude, allowing practically anything that wasn't empty, an advertisement, a repeat, or blatantly inciteful. We almost never hid comments to articles, barring a nasty incident following the Netanya suicide bombing in 2001 and the Israeli military operation that followed it, where some knob decided to post anti-Jewish imagery as comments to every article on the newswire. The jerk, stopped, eventually, and the flood of crap that polluted the newswire helped spark a discussion about reorganizing the site and the abilities of the newswire clerks.
This leads to another point, regarding freedom of speech. Free speech does not mean every nutbar and arsewad can post whatever crap they want and cry "censorship" when it is removed. Even sites operated by anarchist collectives will have rules, since "anarch" translates as "no leaders," not "no rules". However, I've found that the most satisfying sites have an open membership policy. Anyone who is willing to put in the effort can join the edit
You want us to pay for a binary run-time licence... what do you want me to do with this directory full of Linux source, and thus, as you claim, "your" IP?
What? Delete it?
HA! Make me!
Most of all, if you claim to have never GPLd certain bits of code that you won't identify, and the kernel thus reverts to standard copyright, how much of my US$699 will be going to the other developers and copyright holders? Or, will you just wait for their lawsuits?
"If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution." --Famous misquote of Emma Goldman
Sometimes, people just want to have fun. Fear not; some people have already figured out that organized coincidences can be effective protests. See: Critical Mass bike rides. More will figure this out over time. Right now, just enjoy it!
My hunch is that SCO will be exposed for multiple counts of libel, slander, copyright violation, and stock pumping. I also have a hunch that one analyst under NDA will break it if it becomes clear SCO falsified information or misrepresented the origin of code the analysts were shown.
Last time I believe our distributor's dates
on
No Doom 3 This Year?
·
· Score: 1
This is pretty amusing, considering that our store's main distributor recently posted a release date of October 6 for Doom 3.
Then again, the clairvoyants over there also seem to think the release date for Halo 2 is sure to be Oct. 15, 2004.
Anyone else in retail care to enlighten me as to where distributors get these dates, aside from directly out of their asses?
Has anyone found an article on the SCO debacle where an interviewer has point-blank asked McBride (or whoever) why SCO has been (and continues) to offer their Linux distro with full source under the GPL on their own FTP site?
Not quite, but close.
On May 16, 2003, someone went through the available OpenLinux distributions based on the 2.4 kernel, and removed the binaries and source.
However, the person(s) who did this forgot to remove the binary and source kernel packages contained in the/pub/updates/$whatever directories. In fact, it appears an update to OL 3.1.1, based on the 2.4.13 kernel, was posted on May 9. As well, the OpenLinux distributions are still on SCO's ftp server, just without kernels.
Although McBride, et al have occasionally claimed that code outside of the kernel proper is infringing, SCO's claims outside of court are a moving target, and thus only worth noting for the purpose of countering the FUD. Watch what claims they actually make in court, and keep an eye on where they get smacked down. Look at what happened to SCO in Germany, and what is about to happen in Poland.
You can get patches for each new version of 2.4 from kernel.org and its mirrors. If SCO thinks it's safe to distribute 2.4.13 due to a lack of infringing code, then digging through the subsequent patches should reveal what code SCO thinks it owns[0].
However, I find it far more likely that SCO's lawyers are overrated and don't understand the implications of the GPL and GPL violations. I don't think SCO's lawyers understand that, by claiming certain pieces of code are not under GPL, that the entire kernel they are distributing here now falls under standard copyright law. Since SCO does not have copyright on the entire kernel, this distribution is illegal and itself infringing until SCO obtains permission from every other person who has copyrighted code in the kernel.[1]
[0] This seems to be a moving target, depending on who is speaking and what day it is, my opinion that the whole thing is a bullpuckey stock scam notwithstanding.
[1] The amusing thing is, timestamps on SCO's ftp server indicate there was a serious attempt to wipe out all signs of 2.4.13 kernel code and binaries on May 16, 2003. Despite this, you can still find several copies of 2.4.13 in the updates directory. I can't believe SCO's staff would fail to think of this, and I'm stunned that the legal teams haven't caught wind of this and demanded that these copies also be wiped out.
I wonder why she would lob a question like this in McBride's direction.
Her interview is worth reading again--if the infringing code is in both 2.4 and 2.2, as Didio claims she saw, and the UnixWare licence is only being applied to 2.4 distributions, then does that mean the infringing code in 2.2 is worth nothing?
Whose copyright?!? Surely, if is a GNU copyright notice, then SCO shouldn't be claiming the code.
It's not that simple.
I just did a quick grep of the 2.4.21 source, looking for the word "Copyright". It appears that every file has a line specifying the copyright year and holder. All SCO would need to do is strip out really obvious copyright notices, like those belonging to Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, or Red Hat, and it would be less clear to an uninformed outside observer who the code writer worked with in the first place. Do you think Rob Enderle knows who, say, Andrea Arcangeli is, or any of the other kernel hackers who don't get interviewed on CNN or MSNBC?
I'm willing to bet a lot of analysts are going to look very foolish and overpaid before this is over.
This type of license strong-arming is the reason embeded market should choose BSD.
Well, Linksys didn't. Linksys chose to use GPL code, and now they've complied with the licence, as is expected. I'm sure Linksys would expect other companies to work within the rules of any licence on Linksys code, so it shouldn't be any different for Linksys using* GPL code. It's not strong-arming, anyway; I'm sure BSD coders would get a little ruffled if it turned out Linksys was using BSD code without proper attribution.
* Where "using" means "modifying and distributing," which is where the GPL takes effect.
2. Pepsi could say Coke has dog poo in it, sure, and open themselves to a huge libel suit.
Indeed. If some of the things SCO press releases and Darl McBride are saying turn out to be falsehoods, libel and slander suits may be the kind of legal annihilation IBM will resort to, along with several other companies and individuals, although I can't see Linus wasting his time on a petty revenge suit. He'll let Big Blue do the dirty work:)
Then forward the URL to someone who can get it to IBM's legal team, because this would go a long way to proving SCO can't even practice due diligence in stopping its own distribution of supposedly infringing code.
I'm sure IBM already has some legal WMD aimed at Darl McBride's fat head, but it can't hurt to add one more 10kT warhead to the pile.
Too bad we can't get them to do it the right way, with version numbers and ReadMe's stating changes since the previous version.
Funny thing is, this is almost what happens with the newswires that media sources use to get their news. Corrections and updates are sent out, usually with a line describing the specific changes in the new version. Everything is slugged (a short, two- or three-word identification of where the news is from and what happened, along with originating wire and date), so past versions can be tracked down.
Slashdot Mirror
If SCO "owns" a small fraction of a widely distributed whole, that whole in its entirety is SCO's property.
Even better--if SCO claims to own a small fraction of a widely distributed whole, that whole in its entirety is SCO's property.
There's an interesting historical parallel to this--the Pope "giving" the Spanish Empire a large chunk of North and South America during the European colonial period (not to mention all the claims staked by British, French, Dutch, and Portuguese explorers), despite there clearly being an existing population with arguably much more solid rights to the continent.*
Here's where the parallel gets scary--when the existing owners of the property resisted the aggression of the claimaints, the invaders wiped them out with sheer force and legal trickery.
I've gotta say, I've never been through one of these before, but I've learned a lot about survival prior to the age of ubiquitous electricity. I don't remember the 1998 Quebec ice storm blackout, as it didn't stretch to my home, and I don't remember what the 1989 solar flare-induced blackout was like.
I was slinging computer games when the power died. After clearing everyone from the store and locking down, we hung around the corridor with other sales jockeys before giving up and going home. Called the little lady on a landline, then started the long trek toward home. It's amazing how quickly people can self-organize when necessary--most of the intersections I passed were handled by volunteers directing traffic. Except for a few minutes around the really busy Yonge-Dundas intersection, traffic moved relatively normally. People actually obeyed random strangers because it needed to be done.
It's little surprise that thousands headed for the nearest source of alcohol. When nothing works, get hammered.
I'm amazed to recall that my first concern upon returning home was figuring out which foodstuffs were non-perishable and whether the water still worked. Since it's practically impossible (not to mention illegal) to build firepits in an urban area like Toronto, and finding spare coal or wood to burn is next to futile, I imagine I'd have been chewing on cereal if a variety store hadn't been nearby. I wonder what would happen if the power were to go away for more than a week...
Last thing that stood out for me--the sky, and the quiet! Without the constant background din of urban life--cars, air conditioners, televisions, lights, the hum of transmission lines--I could actually hear people thirty, fifty metres away. And the sky! Stars everywhere, and a bright moon that actually illuminated the ground enough for blind ol' me to figure out where I was going! For the first time, I truly understand the effects of light and noise pollution.
I'm going to be one of about a million people writing navel-gazing articles about life during this short throwback to the non-electric age, but I hope I don't forget what I realized over the past day. I think we'll have to reduce our reliance on technology in every aspect of life if we want to live sustainably anyway, so this was a good warm-up and wake-up call.
I also have some thoughts on modernizing the power grid (short version: distributed microgenerators and a diverse mixture of different generators, heavy on the renewables, saving the non-renewables for emergencies and shortfalls), but that's for another post. Right now, I'm just happy to have seen people visit with their neighbours and hang around outside for a few hours, something I don't see very often here in the big city.
It may become a question not only of which license applies, but also whether or not the code contributed to Linux was the same as the code that Sequent had or if it was a re-implementation of the patent that IBM holds.
The argument may eventually come down to whether 12-line chunks of code, reimplemented, are a copyright violation. It's not bloody likely that the Sequent-written multi-processor control code for Dynix would work in Linux were it simply dropped in wholesale, but it's quite possible, even probable, that chunks of code (perhaps even eighty lines long... hmmmm...) need to be similar, due to the nature of the Sequent implementation that IBM purchased along with the company.
My guess: SCO is claiming entire files are copyright violations, when in reality only certain small chunks of code are similar. Some files may be very close to source files from Dynix's multiproc implementation, due to factors common to multiproc-capable operating systems. If IBM can prove that the code written for Linux is based solely on a theoretical document with possible examples, and not actual Dynix source files, SCO is fucked, hard. SCO's complaint about "UNIX development methods" sounds like a reference to exploratory theoretical documents that some other posters said were written by a Sequent employee before such functionality was implemented in any OS. Unless there's something very wacky in Sequent's contract with AT&T that goes beyond handing source code rights over to the owner of SysV, SCO is desperately fishing for a case here, even more than before. This also demonstrates that their press releases are the stuff of pump-and-dump schemes, puffery and bluster about subject completely unrelated to what they're claiming in court.
At first, the details seem to possibly damn IBM for dropping code they didn't control into Linux, but IBM only has to prove the Linux code is simply a new implementation based on a source common to Dynix, AIX, and Linux--examples and theory documents.
Yahoo's 2-year chart, and the six-month chart. Cute how the stock goes nowhere until the company starts crying for a buyout, and if you cross-reference with the insider trades page I linked in the other post, you'll note that nothing takes place until after the lawsuit is filed and the stock starts leaping. Curious, that. Expected behaviour, perhaps, but given the exaggerated nature of SCO's anti-Linux campaign and the fact that the company hasn't actually tried to produce anything since Project Monterrey fell through, the rather ambitious automatic sale targets set by the execs sure make me wonder whether the execs can honestly say this is not a pump-and-dump operation. The fact that SCO's stock flirted with penny-stock status for about a year, combined with no output beyond a lawsuit and legal threats, would seem to reinforce that impression.
Based on the noticeable downturn in recent weeks, I'd lay good money that SCO's about to issue another Comical Ali-esque press release.
Curious.
There's a noticeable blip during yesterday's trading where the stock price nosedives near $8, then goes back up to the trend, under heavy volume. I wonder what happened?
Also, this page is worth noting--insider trades! Some of them dumped two sets of stock on the same day under different titles. I dunno whether this is normal procedure, but it certainly looks curious.
Nice try, but that bit about having a girlfriend was Just Too Obvious.
One need only contrast, say, the metric system, the English system, and a system based on the size of the current king's foot to recognize this reality.
Nice apples-n-oranges comparison--you seem to be declaring that certain sources can be considered arbiters of objective truth and facts above all others. This is provably incorrect, as I will soon demonstrate.
You are the one that has lost your objectivity.
I never had objectivity--and neither have you, unless you're a noncorporeal force with no emotions or opinions. Objectivity is something journalists and other writers strive for, rarely (if ever) achieve, and use to attack each other while failing to acknowledge their own glass house. Sometimes, the internecine, dishonest sniping of media editors reminds me of the Scientology cult's methods regarding criticism: "Always attack, never defend".
Sometimes. Not always.
When you start saying phrases like "a collective that comes from economic or political demands," no wonder you think people cannot be objective. You're lost in your own mind and not making any measurements.
What does my use of certain phrases have to do with the possibility that people cannot achieve the complete objectivity, individually or collectively, that modern Western journalism claims to aspire to?
The facts are the facts. They happen. You do your best to report them by finding as much and placing value on time and relevence.
Thank you, Captain Obvious--did I acknowledge this in my own commentary, or did I not?
I should know. It's asshats like you that think that you can do my job better in five minutes than what has taken me years and thousands of hours to improve.
Five minutes? I've been working on this myself for several years now. Perhaps its not the decades and thousands of hours that you've taken, but I have to wonder if you're trying to hide from a basic reality of journalism because it conflicts with the values you have been told are central to your job. I may be wrong--but then, so could you.
I struggle with this every Monday and Tuesday morning on a regular basis, not to mention the times I deal with how to sift truth from piles of bullshit on an irregular basis. I've decided that I am biased, that I have opinions, that at the very least I will subconsciously allow those views to affect my output, and that even though I will try to correct exaggerations I must make clear my own views to the audience, so they can correct for their own ideological filters. The facts are sacrosanct, but the interpretation and presentation can differ, and will differ as I noted by comparing three different newspapers with consistently different portrayals of the same events, given the same published facts.
Journalism is a skill. It can be quantified by its innacurracies and other factors.
Correct. It is not, however, rocket science, or a task that should be limited to an anointed few who consider themselves and their reporting objective, failing to recognize that they cannot be completely objective by fact of participating at all in human society. A social version of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle could be developed here; a person cannot observe an event and transmit that information without having some influence on the event itself, either directly (something even many independent journalists consider a no-no), or indirectly through subconscious spin and massaging of information that goes on to affect the perceptions of other people. Again, best that this reality be acknowleged and corrected for as much as possible, by the writers, editors, and audience.
Some people (cough) think they know, when all they have are crackpot opinions, and think that the every journalist is FOX NEWS.
Yes, and some people create opinions of others based on incorrect or miscontextualized quotes and clips. Did I say that every journalist is Fox News, or that
For some time, I've participated in a couple parts of a widespread participatory journalism project. Since participatory journalism can be anything from an open publishing system with editor collectives, to someone's soapbox with a comment system, it's a bit hard for anyone to call themself an expert or something. With that said, I'd like to toss in a few thoughts drawn from my own experiences.
First, I haven't read the comments, but I suspect more than a few people will cry "but what about objectivity???" Objectivity does not exist. Everyone, every reporter, every editor, approaches a story from an angle, whether a personal one derived from years of experience, or a collective one that comes from economic or political demands. It is essential that independent writers report and analyse truthful information without exaggeration, but there must be an open acknowledgement that different sources will skew descriptions based on their own opinions. One need only contrast, say, the Toronto Star, the National Post, and Socialist Worker's description of the same events to recognize this reality.
I find that the best articles, in corporate, state, and independent media report the facts, then provide analysis based on the writer's stated or perceivable mental framework. Journalism seems at its best when the writers go beyond reporting, placing events in a greater context. Obviously, context can be selective, which makes the necessity of varied sources even more important. Falsehoods and exaggerations need to be called out and corrected. However, the focus on "objectivity" has become a fetish that very few news services really pay anything more than lip service to. Far too often, objectivity is used as a cover for inserting yet another editorial viewpoint to an article or deleting a disfavoured view (or even an uncomfortable fact). The most obvious example of this that pops into my head is Fox News' "Fair and Balanced" slogan, and you can probably come up with many more.
Second, open-publishing sites will be just as influenced by concerns outside of pure reporting as the New York Times or the Islamic Republic News Agency. Editorial collectives or individual editors will post features based on an overall point of view. I doubt anyone will ever see a feature praising neoconservatives on Ontario Indymedia; likewise, I will never expect to see a headline praising anarchists on Free Republic. If there are forums or open-publishing systems, the collective/editors will likely retain some kind of control over the system. Some kind of editing capability is necessary to deal with spam, flames disguised as news, repeated postings, false info, legally questionable things (some sites will be more anal than others regarding legalities), etc. I've found that comments are best left untouched, since the debate can be useful and enlightening, such as many high-score posts here.
I've participated in two editorial collectives. One tended toward a freewheeling attitude, allowing practically anything that wasn't empty, an advertisement, a repeat, or blatantly inciteful. We almost never hid comments to articles, barring a nasty incident following the Netanya suicide bombing in 2001 and the Israeli military operation that followed it, where some knob decided to post anti-Jewish imagery as comments to every article on the newswire. The jerk, stopped, eventually, and the flood of crap that polluted the newswire helped spark a discussion about reorganizing the site and the abilities of the newswire clerks.
This leads to another point, regarding freedom of speech. Free speech does not mean every nutbar and arsewad can post whatever crap they want and cry "censorship" when it is removed. Even sites operated by anarchist collectives will have rules, since "anarch" translates as "no leaders," not "no rules". However, I've found that the most satisfying sites have an open membership policy. Anyone who is willing to put in the effort can join the edit
Either the next three months when the Red Hat injunction is decided upon, or April 5, 2005, the date for the SCO-IBM contract dispute lawsuit.
Or, possibly sooner--I'm seeing rumblings on the Yahoo SCOX message board about lawsuits against Darl's crew being prepared from many quarters.
Hey, SCO?
You want us to pay for a binary run-time licence... what do you want me to do with this directory full of Linux source, and thus, as you claim, "your" IP?
What? Delete it?
HA! Make me!
Most of all, if you claim to have never GPLd certain bits of code that you won't identify, and the kernel thus reverts to standard copyright, how much of my US$699 will be going to the other developers and copyright holders? Or, will you just wait for their lawsuits?
SCO wants money. I want code, and I want proof that they can legally do this. No code? No proof? No money.
It's that simple.
I strongly suspect some major holders of Linux copyrights are about to jump in with Red Hat, demanding that SCO prove it can do this.
If SCO wants to see money, I want to see code. No code? No money.
Shoo, fly, shoo.
"If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution."
--Famous misquote of Emma Goldman
Sometimes, people just want to have fun. Fear not; some people have already figured out that organized coincidences can be effective protests. See: Critical Mass bike rides. More will figure this out over time. Right now, just enjoy it!
Side note: The story behind the quote is here.
An old idea.
The new twist seems to be that no one is getting killed.
I fully expect that if everyone did revert to 2.2 kernels that SCO would find something to extort with there as well.
Indeed, one of the analysts who signed the SCO NDA said she was shown copied code in 2.2 as well as 2.4.
My hunch is that SCO will be exposed for multiple counts of libel, slander, copyright violation, and stock pumping. I also have a hunch that one analyst under NDA will break it if it becomes clear SCO falsified information or misrepresented the origin of code the analysts were shown.
This is pretty amusing, considering that our store's main distributor recently posted a release date of October 6 for Doom 3.
Then again, the clairvoyants over there also seem to think the release date for Halo 2 is sure to be Oct. 15, 2004.
Anyone else in retail care to enlighten me as to where distributors get these dates, aside from directly out of their asses?
Has anyone found an article on the SCO debacle where an interviewer has point-blank asked McBride (or whoever) why SCO has been (and continues) to offer their Linux distro with full source under the GPL on their own FTP site?
/pub/updates/$whatever directories. In fact, it appears an update to OL 3.1.1, based on the 2.4.13 kernel, was posted on May 9. As well, the OpenLinux distributions are still on SCO's ftp server, just without kernels.
Not quite, but close.
On May 16, 2003, someone went through the available OpenLinux distributions based on the 2.4 kernel, and removed the binaries and source.
However, the person(s) who did this forgot to remove the binary and source kernel packages contained in the
Although McBride, et al have occasionally claimed that code outside of the kernel proper is infringing, SCO's claims outside of court are a moving target, and thus only worth noting for the purpose of countering the FUD. Watch what claims they actually make in court, and keep an eye on where they get smacked down. Look at what happened to SCO in Germany, and what is about to happen in Poland.
You can get patches for each new version of 2.4 from kernel.org and its mirrors. If SCO thinks it's safe to distribute 2.4.13 due to a lack of infringing code, then digging through the subsequent patches should reveal what code SCO thinks it owns[0].
However, I find it far more likely that SCO's lawyers are overrated and don't understand the implications of the GPL and GPL violations. I don't think SCO's lawyers understand that, by claiming certain pieces of code are not under GPL, that the entire kernel they are distributing here now falls under standard copyright law. Since SCO does not have copyright on the entire kernel, this distribution is illegal and itself infringing until SCO obtains permission from every other person who has copyrighted code in the kernel.[1]
[0] This seems to be a moving target, depending on who is speaking and what day it is, my opinion that the whole thing is a bullpuckey stock scam notwithstanding.
[1] The amusing thing is, timestamps on SCO's ftp server indicate there was a serious attempt to wipe out all signs of 2.4.13 kernel code and binaries on May 16, 2003. Despite this, you can still find several copies of 2.4.13 in the updates directory. I can't believe SCO's staff would fail to think of this, and I'm stunned that the legal teams haven't caught wind of this and demanded that these copies also be wiped out.
Question #10 Laura Didio, Yankee Group
Question: How can you be so sure that this code did not come from BSD Unix or from Linux versions?
Question: Have you had talks with Linux gurus such as Linus Torvalds?
This Laura Didio?
I wonder why she would lob a question like this in McBride's direction.
Her interview is worth reading again--if the infringing code is in both 2.4 and 2.2, as Didio claims she saw, and the UnixWare licence is only being applied to 2.4 distributions, then does that mean the infringing code in 2.2 is worth nothing?
Has Junis told him about installing Red Hat 9 on his C64 yet?
Whose copyright?!? Surely, if is a GNU copyright notice, then SCO shouldn't be claiming the code.
It's not that simple.
I just did a quick grep of the 2.4.21 source, looking for the word "Copyright". It appears that every file has a line specifying the copyright year and holder. All SCO would need to do is strip out really obvious copyright notices, like those belonging to Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, or Red Hat, and it would be less clear to an uninformed outside observer who the code writer worked with in the first place. Do you think Rob Enderle knows who, say, Andrea Arcangeli is, or any of the other kernel hackers who don't get interviewed on CNN or MSNBC?
I'm willing to bet a lot of analysts are going to look very foolish and overpaid before this is over.
This type of license strong-arming is the reason embeded market should choose BSD.
Well, Linksys didn't. Linksys chose to use GPL code, and now they've complied with the licence, as is expected. I'm sure Linksys would expect other companies to work within the rules of any licence on Linksys code, so it shouldn't be any different for Linksys using* GPL code. It's not strong-arming, anyway; I'm sure BSD coders would get a little ruffled if it turned out Linksys was using BSD code without proper attribution.
* Where "using" means "modifying and distributing," which is where the GPL takes effect.
2. Pepsi could say Coke has dog poo in it, sure, and open themselves to a huge libel suit.
Indeed. If some of the things SCO press releases and Darl McBride are saying turn out to be falsehoods, libel and slander suits may be the kind of legal annihilation IBM will resort to, along with several other companies and individuals, although I can't see Linus wasting his time on a petty revenge suit. He'll let Big Blue do the dirty work:)
Quick! Everyone download a copy! :)
Then forward the URL to someone who can get it to IBM's legal team, because this would go a long way to proving SCO can't even practice due diligence in stopping its own distribution of supposedly infringing code.
I'm sure IBM already has some legal WMD aimed at Darl McBride's fat head, but it can't hurt to add one more 10kT warhead to the pile.
Too bad we can't get them to do it the right way, with version numbers and ReadMe's stating changes since the previous version.
Funny thing is, this is almost what happens with the newswires that media sources use to get their news. Corrections and updates are sent out, usually with a line describing the specific changes in the new version. Everything is slugged (a short, two- or three-word identification of where the news is from and what happened, along with originating wire and date), so past versions can be tracked down.