Heh, you should read PJ's take on it, as this story is also covered on Groklaw
Speaking of which, has anyone else noticed the singular omissions Brown of AdTI is making here? One might think that he was acting with a reckless disregard for the truth, which counts as evidence of "actual malice." Not that that should be surprising to us, as those on SCO's side of things have been known for defaming people before (see my sig or journal), but it might be a basis for a lawsuit, even though Linus is likely a "public figure"... Of course, IANAL.
Because we all know that someone would never give something away under any license like, oh, the GPL... or the Creative Commons... or... oh, you're just trolling:P
Okay, so they don't pay you to do it directly, but they give you time to do it... or something like that. I didn't mean to imply that it's somehow commercial; I know that it's always been something you do on your own.
I think I just got confused by your last explanation of it, because you did say something about OSRM being generous to give you enough time to still do Groklaw.
I know you're kidding, but SCO is grasping at straws here. I seriously wouldn't be surprised to see Darl or someone spinning this comment as though it represents some "vast conspiracy funded by IBM" against them or similar nonsense... It's not like they have serious arguements to put before the jury...
Hell, Daniel Lyons of Forbes has already printed random comments from discussion boards in his "articles." Methinks he needs to retake Journalism 101...:/
(Why yes, I do bash Lyons a lot. My personal, biased opinion of him is that he's a scolecophagous scorbutical scoundrel. That expression, of course, is a horribly contrived Google-bomb which means 'a worm-eating scoundrel with scurvy' -- there are lots of fun words that start with 'SCO';)
Well, she gets tons of research tips (I've sent various bits I've found, I'm by no means the only one) and whatnot, but it's all her there, piecing it together, SFAIK.
Though I know that MathFox (admin of groklaw.net, runs the site while PJ posts everything) is in on the Grokline project (he did all the software, according to the grokline page). So I guess that there are other people involved, but PJ == Pamela Jones, who is just one person:]
So these *are* collaborative efforts here, but it's all PJ posting on Groklaw, save when she reproduces various things, like those two header files that were analyzed extensively over there. But any time she's quoting someone else, it says. Most of the stories are all from her, though. I should know, I read them every day:]
You kid, but we might get intellectual property reform a lot faster if they cracked down on every currently unauthorized use of their "property."
By that, I mean suing people who sing "Happy Birthday" at parties in their home, or charging people who hum too much of a song for giving an 'unlicensed performance in contravention of their exclusive rights' and crap like that.
Or, say, getting a drug patent and *only* allowing it to be used in places that do not recognize them. Or the same with patents and software; patenting your software, putting it up for free, and allowing *only* those in countries which do not recognize software patents to use it.
We all know that IP is supposed to encourage innovation. We also know that it is being used to stifle it; it would just be nice to be able to illustrate that more clearly with stunts like these, so as to help people who haven't thought about this much to understand these problems...
Speaking of good Atari games, wasn't there a Slashdot story about a Strong Bad Atari game recently?
What ever happened with that? Last I knew they were still only a demo...
Heh, I still remember that Mario game on Atari where you hit that POW! block to knock enemies over and there was a 2-player mode vs. each other. That was always one of my favorites (at least, among the original non-homebrew games). Ironically, when I got it, I thought that it was the same Mario game as on the NES (which I didn't have yet) and so I was surprised...:]
Very true. Neither of those dichtomies describes me at all. I can range from some fairly "conservative" beliefs about some things, to some very "liberal" beliefs about things like intellectual property reform...
But I suspect it's easier to get us to vote for the lesser (greater?) of two evils, if it is made into an "us vs. them" thing for the people on both sides...
Why, even their "Insightful" moderation translates as "splendid discernment."
Mind you, that is the Babelfish translation... My brain still hasn't forgiven me for trying to memorize the kana, much less the kanji...
Keep going at it long enough, and you may have nasty dreams of being jacked into the Matrix with it raining katakana (which is what those green falling symbols were in the Matrix movie... at least, I don't remember seeing any hiragana or kanji among them). Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll be trying to forget my failed attempt to learn Japanese...
! !
Re:His comment on Slashdot:
on
More From Tanenbaum
·
· Score: 3, Informative
That's the extent of Tanenbaum's achievenemts. ----
Eh? He did a bit more than just write MINIX!
He's an IEEE & ACM fellow, has written a number of well-known and widely-used books... But don't take my word for it, Google away.
As for sour grapes, I don't sense any, and I exchanged a few emails with him after the last story.
IBM has managed to make their support of Linux something that is to our mutual advantages.
We get enterprise level support and code contributions from IBM, they get to sell services, promote sales of IBM hardware, and to have the freedom from any one particular vendor.
Besides, it simply wouldn't be in their best interests to betray us, and if they did, the community would surely respond in kind.
Barring some new change in the markets that upsets IBM's Linux strategy, their current relationship seems to be stable enough and isn't very likely to change in the near term. Sure, there could be some radical management shakeup, wherein the top brass wind up replaced with "open source is un-American" types or some other bizarre change, but I consider that unlikely, at least for the time being.
I am still disturbed however to be supporting a big, bad (well, in the past), corporation against the little guy. No matter how evil the little guy is in this particular case. Somehow the glee that infects the open source community from IBM's good strikes against SCO just don't sit well with me. ----
1) SCO picked this fight. No one forced them to sue.
2) Just because they're the "little guy" doens't mean they deserve to win.
3) IBM has actually been rather magnanimous to SCO, allowing them lots of extra time (in a few past motions), not quibbling about the small details (several things they could have objected to, they have overlooked), while at the same time (obviously) maintining a consistant position that SCO's position is inconsistant and absurd.
4) From my reading of both sets of filings, the reason IBM is doing so well is not that they've somehow railroaded SCO, it's that IBM has been able to keep all their legal filings consistant and SCO can't keep their story straight, and since SCO hasn't been able to do this, neither has their legal counsel. Thus, SCO has asserted a number of things which they ought not to have, and are losing as a result of their own misconduct.
5) IBM seems to have reformed. They're not trying to control the operating systems market, they're trying to make sure that no one can, ironically. So they won't be beholden to any one operating systems company, and open source software gives IBM all the advantages in being able to help people customize it to make use of IBM hardware.
I feel that "big corp" vs. "little guy" reasoning is too simplistic, if it were being used as the only criteria for deciding who to support, without reference to the facts at hand. I don't blame you for not wanting to root for some company's demise, though, I just wanted to lay out why I don't have so much of a problem with watching SCO get stomped in court.
I'm not sure that much of the mail doesn't come from servers overseas, too, but that's based on personal conjecture, and not TFA.
Fact is, most spammers are here and most of the machines they use are over there.
I guess the theory is that it's often hard to LART sites when you don't speak their language, so that cuts down on the number of people who can report them. In theory, anyhow.
OK, Grandma, now type in your PGP passphrase. Ensure it's very long and made up of alphanumerics, symbols and control characters. Make sure you don't forget it...
But if you have to write it down, keep the paper in your wallet, and don't let other people see it. Since most people don't let random people root through their wallet, and they don't leave it lying around that much...
As a correlary, change your password whenever you think that someone might have seen it, don't tell people you keep it there), and avoid ever writing it down if you can manage it. Speaking of which, don't write down your username or what that login is for, so that if your pocket gets picked by an opportunistic pickpocket, they don't have enough to go on. You should hopefully remember at least that much, anyhow.
This isn't a perfect system, by any means, but its at least a bit better than having them put a sticky note under the keyboard...:]
1) The top spammers (the people) are from the USA.
2) They like to use relays (computers) in China, since most of the ISPs here don't like spammers and spamhauses (ISPs set up to do nothing but host spammers, they may even pretend to take down accounts while just shifting them to different ones, etc. Evil, really.)
3) They're also now using worm/virus-infected hosts as relays. I recently helped a friend clean out a rather nasty infestation which was being used as a spam relay without their knowledge, and which had been reported at SpamCop (this, I believe, was how we first found out about the evil relay, actually).
4) Oddly enough, today I got my first compliant spam under the FTC's rules. It actually had 'Sexually Explicit:' in the subject line unmunged. I was fairly impressed. Naturally, it was deleted immediately along with all other spam in the spamtrap.
5) Even if we don't get all (or very many of them), I think that the new spam law may do some good, though it surely won't stop spam. I would just love it if we could take out the top dozen or so US spammers, which would decrease the spam volume by an order of magnitude, I should think. Spam relays don't send spam on their own, folks (at least, not yet... hrm, hope I don't give them any ideas...). Even if the law doesn't really do much of anything, I still wouldn't mind seeing spammers in jail...
We've already seen that Microsoft has ties to or is funding these groups privately. While I would not discourage anyone from researching it, I doubt that they're going to document everything for us and throw it up somewhere on the Internet.
Rather, I expect them to have private chats with key people (none of which would likely be documented) and to fund them, maintaining distance with statements like 'We fund a number of private groups, and our people have ties to many more, you can't draw conclusions based on that. Moreover, we have nothing to do with what they're doing now.' This leaves us with an unprovable conjecture that they're part of a Microsoft strategy, but to be fair, they're keeping a bit of plausible deniability in there, as they really do fund all sorts of things (one might want them to be more selective...) and have ties to all sorts of groups (it'd be hard not to if you have enough employees, etc.), though I will say that they have more control over who they fund than we have over whoever claims to be on "our side" and then acts like an idiot (see my journal for an example of SCO's agents provacateurs for something positively underhanded). And of course, there are folks like Enderle and Lyons who will blame "us" (insofar as there even is an "us" in some contexts) for every bad thing someone does or says.
You're right that emphasizing AdTI's conservative links is pretty much pointless (save that it's sure not to win them many friends here), but I would like to point out that the rest of it is spot-on, specifically the bits about how AdTI is little more than a hack publication hired out to write flamebait articles and generate controversy.
I refer you to my prior musings as to what they're up to here, my speculations being the only reasonable angle I can see Microsoft as having here. As for AdTI, I think that their angle on this is to hype the book they're publishing.
Linus Torvalds should sue the author for libel and defamation of character (and extend it to slander if the author is making oral statements publicly).
This is a private organization, as far as I can see, that relies on donations (e.g. the ones from Microsoft...). Granted, they don't seem to be a 501 (c)(3), but I suspect they would still call or consider themselves some kind of charity for media purposes.
Now then, if you see my other post, you'll see that I think that they want us to react strongly so that they can portray us in a negative light, and "Linus sues charity" is probably just the sort of headline they would like. Who, you might ask, would be crazy enough to give a headline like that? I can name at least two such people, Enderle and Lyons, both of whom should be familiar to anyone who has followed SCO vs. IBM...
That's not to say, however, that he wouldn't be right to. Of course, we pretty well have to wait until they say more than they did in that blurb. It may be recklessly false, but they haven't published very much of a statement to base a lawsuit on just yet, IMHO. Apparently, they plan to publish a book soon, however, and that might have more substance (e.g. more lies), were Linus considering suing over it... My suspicions, as above, are that they're using this to get free publicity to hype their book, since curious folks would have to buy the book to read it, generating royalties for them...
And finally, cheers to Hemos. There five times as many links in the editorial insert than there are in the actual submission. Someone buy this man a beer.
*Ahem* I hate to spoil that nice thought, but Hemos appears to have taken all of those links from my (rejected) submission last night, and then forgot the media transparency link on where they get their funding. The rest appear to be exactly the same ones I submitted...
Speaking of which, here's an other good source of links to information.
Oh, and here's my other post from Groklaw, concerning what I think they're up to by throwing out inane nonsense like this press release:
Oddly, the word "misdirection" is all I can think of just now. For those who do not know, it is a fundamental principle of illusionists to misdirection with flashes and loud noises so that you will miss where the slight of hand is actually going on. By managing the attention of the crowd, focusing it on something noisy and exciting, one misdirects them so that they are surprised when the magic happens.
It was Enderle who gave me this idea, of all people. You may remember him, for all his claims about "Linux terrorists" and then trying even to provoke Linux vs. BSD flamewars in a snotty aside at the end of one of his articles.
You see, it should be obvious to anyone that this is all designed as flamebait. One would expect people to react vociferously, as is the nature of flamebait. But what is its use? For our "analysts" in the institute here, it means money, either in donations from the like-minded, or even hype for their book. Even those who hate it might be tempted to read it, simply to find out what they say in it.
As for Microsoft, what do they gain from negative PR, you might ask? I suspect they want to make themselves out to be a victim. Oh, of course, we certainly won't buy it, but if voices like Enderle's prevail... well, that's another matter. The general public, and thus many of Microsoft's customers, probably won't hear about all this, but they might hear the news Microsoft helps put out, say on MSNBC or other channels...
How might they become a "victim" you ask? By portraying us as "reactionary" (even when there may be no "us" to speak of) and trumping up those who come up with the crazy conspiracy theories to discredit those who can envision more plausible scenarios. I suspect that they would simply say that their funding of this group was innocent and incidental, then some up with some wildly inaccurate conspiracy theory from some random person on the internet, and use that to discredit all those who see any significant involvement between the two.
Worse, if (God forbid) anyone got upset enough to do something illegal, we would all be maligned for it. In such a hostile environment, they may blame even unrelated misfortunes (such as one's server crashing, or random hardware failures) on unknown "hackers"...
So don't get distracted by patent nonsense. Refute it, yes, but always with a level head, knowing that there are "journalists" like Daniel Lyons of Forbes who will even stoop to quoting random anonymous comments off the internet to make it look as though everyone with a differing opinion is a moron, while SCO has invented fake protesters with fake signs claiming to support communism, among other things.
So remember, they're not trying to convince us of anything. They're trying to convince those who know little about these issues and who haven't taken sides yet.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh, you should read PJ's take on it, as this story is also covered on Groklaw
... Of course, IANAL.
Speaking of which, has anyone else noticed the singular omissions Brown of AdTI is making here? One might think that he was acting with a reckless disregard for the truth, which counts as evidence of "actual malice." Not that that should be surprising to us, as those on SCO's side of things have been known for defaming people before (see my sig or journal), but it might be a basis for a lawsuit, even though Linus is likely a "public figure"
Because we all know that someone would never give something away under any license like, oh, the GPL... or the Creative Commons... or... oh, you're just trolling :P
Okay, so they don't pay you to do it directly, but they give you time to do it... or something like that. I didn't mean to imply that it's somehow commercial; I know that it's always been something you do on your own.
I think I just got confused by your last explanation of it, because you did say something about OSRM being generous to give you enough time to still do Groklaw.
I know you're kidding, but SCO is grasping at straws here. I seriously wouldn't be surprised to see Darl or someone spinning this comment as though it represents some "vast conspiracy funded by IBM" against them or similar nonsense... It's not like they have serious arguements to put before the jury...
:/
;)
Hell, Daniel Lyons of Forbes has already printed random comments from discussion boards in his "articles." Methinks he needs to retake Journalism 101...
(Why yes, I do bash Lyons a lot. My personal, biased opinion of him is that he's a scolecophagous scorbutical scoundrel. That expression, of course, is a horribly contrived Google-bomb which means 'a worm-eating scoundrel with scurvy' -- there are lots of fun words that start with 'SCO'
Well, she gets tons of research tips (I've sent various bits I've found, I'm by no means the only one) and whatnot, but it's all her there, piecing it together, SFAIK.
:]
:]
Though I know that MathFox (admin of groklaw.net, runs the site while PJ posts everything) is in on the Grokline project (he did all the software, according to the grokline page). So I guess that there are other people involved, but PJ == Pamela Jones, who is just one person
So these *are* collaborative efforts here, but it's all PJ posting on Groklaw, save when she reproduces various things, like those two header files that were analyzed extensively over there. But any time she's quoting someone else, it says. Most of the stories are all from her, though. I should know, I read them every day
1) She's just one person.
:]
2) This is practically her job now, that's why she does so much; she works for OSRM now, and they pay her to do this + Groklaw now.
3) She does sleep, but she's been known to keep odd hours on occasion.
Speaking of which, here's their how to help page, in case anyone reading this wants to help them out.
[Why yes, I do read Groklaw regularly...
It's out now!
GrokLine
Groklaw story on Grokline
If you're going to write it down anyhow, at least tell them to keep the paper in their wallet.
It's more likely they'll take care of it, then.
You kid, but we might get intellectual property reform a lot faster if they cracked down on every currently unauthorized use of their "property."
By that, I mean suing people who sing "Happy Birthday" at parties in their home, or charging people who hum too much of a song for giving an 'unlicensed performance in contravention of their exclusive rights' and crap like that.
Or, say, getting a drug patent and *only* allowing it to be used in places that do not recognize them. Or the same with patents and software; patenting your software, putting it up for free, and allowing *only* those in countries which do not recognize software patents to use it.
We all know that IP is supposed to encourage innovation. We also know that it is being used to stifle it; it would just be nice to be able to illustrate that more clearly with stunts like these, so as to help people who haven't thought about this much to understand these problems...
Speaking of good Atari games, wasn't there a Slashdot story about a Strong Bad Atari game recently?
:]
What ever happened with that? Last I knew they were still only a demo...
Heh, I still remember that Mario game on Atari where you hit that POW! block to knock enemies over and there was a 2-player mode vs. each other. That was always one of my favorites (at least, among the original non-homebrew games). Ironically, when I got it, I thought that it was the same Mario game as on the NES (which I didn't have yet) and so I was surprised...
Very true. Neither of those dichtomies describes me at all. I can range from some fairly "conservative" beliefs about some things, to some very "liberal" beliefs about things like intellectual property reform...
But I suspect it's easier to get us to vote for the lesser (greater?) of two evils, if it is made into an "us vs. them" thing for the people on both sides...
Oh well, I just vote my conscience.
Heh, everything is cooler in Japanese ;]
Why, even their "Insightful" moderation translates as "splendid discernment."
Mind you, that is the Babelfish translation... My brain still hasn't forgiven me for trying to memorize the kana, much less the kanji...
Keep going at it long enough, and you may have nasty dreams of being jacked into the Matrix with it raining katakana (which is what those green falling symbols were in the Matrix movie... at least, I don't remember seeing any hiragana or kanji among them). Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll be trying to forget my failed attempt to learn Japanese...
! !
That's the extent of Tanenbaum's achievenemts.
----
Eh? He did a bit more than just write MINIX!
He's an IEEE & ACM fellow, has written a number of well-known and widely-used books... But don't take my word for it, Google away.
As for sour grapes, I don't sense any, and I exchanged a few emails with him after the last story.
IBM has managed to make their support of Linux something that is to our mutual advantages.
We get enterprise level support and code contributions from IBM, they get to sell services, promote sales of IBM hardware, and to have the freedom from any one particular vendor.
Besides, it simply wouldn't be in their best interests to betray us, and if they did, the community would surely respond in kind.
Barring some new change in the markets that upsets IBM's Linux strategy, their current relationship seems to be stable enough and isn't very likely to change in the near term. Sure, there could be some radical management shakeup, wherein the top brass wind up replaced with "open source is un-American" types or some other bizarre change, but I consider that unlikely, at least for the time being.
I am still disturbed however to be supporting a big, bad (well, in the past), corporation against the little guy. No matter how evil the little guy is in this particular case. Somehow the glee that infects the open source community from IBM's good strikes against SCO just don't sit well with me.
----
1) SCO picked this fight. No one forced them to sue.
2) Just because they're the "little guy" doens't mean they deserve to win.
3) IBM has actually been rather magnanimous to SCO, allowing them lots of extra time (in a few past motions), not quibbling about the small details (several things they could have objected to, they have overlooked), while at the same time (obviously) maintining a consistant position that SCO's position is inconsistant and absurd.
4) From my reading of both sets of filings, the reason IBM is doing so well is not that they've somehow railroaded SCO, it's that IBM has been able to keep all their legal filings consistant and SCO can't keep their story straight, and since SCO hasn't been able to do this, neither has their legal counsel. Thus, SCO has asserted a number of things which they ought not to have, and are losing as a result of their own misconduct.
5) IBM seems to have reformed. They're not trying to control the operating systems market, they're trying to make sure that no one can, ironically. So they won't be beholden to any one operating systems company, and open source software gives IBM all the advantages in being able to help people customize it to make use of IBM hardware.
I feel that "big corp" vs. "little guy" reasoning is too simplistic, if it were being used as the only criteria for deciding who to support, without reference to the facts at hand. I don't blame you for not wanting to root for some company's demise, though, I just wanted to lay out why I don't have so much of a problem with watching SCO get stomped in court.
I'm not sure that much of the mail doesn't come from servers overseas, too, but that's based on personal conjecture, and not TFA.
Fact is, most spammers are here and most of the machines they use are over there.
I guess the theory is that it's often hard to LART sites when you don't speak their language, so that cuts down on the number of people who can report them. In theory, anyhow.
OK, Grandma, now type in your PGP passphrase. Ensure it's very long and made up of alphanumerics, symbols and control characters. Make sure you don't forget it...
:]
But if you have to write it down, keep the paper in your wallet, and don't let other people see it. Since most people don't let random people root through their wallet, and they don't leave it lying around that much...
As a correlary, change your password whenever you think that someone might have seen it, don't tell people you keep it there), and avoid ever writing it down if you can manage it. Speaking of which, don't write down your username or what that login is for, so that if your pocket gets picked by an opportunistic pickpocket, they don't have enough to go on. You should hopefully remember at least that much, anyhow.
This isn't a perfect system, by any means, but its at least a bit better than having them put a sticky note under the keyboard...
Bah, see also http://google-watch-watch.org/
*waits for someone to register google-watch-watch-watch.org*
Well, it works like this:
1) The top spammers (the people) are from the USA.
2) They like to use relays (computers) in China, since most of the ISPs here don't like spammers and spamhauses (ISPs set up to do nothing but host spammers, they may even pretend to take down accounts while just shifting them to different ones, etc. Evil, really.)
3) They're also now using worm/virus-infected hosts as relays. I recently helped a friend clean out a rather nasty infestation which was being used as a spam relay without their knowledge, and which had been reported at SpamCop (this, I believe, was how we first found out about the evil relay, actually).
4) Oddly enough, today I got my first compliant spam under the FTC's rules. It actually had 'Sexually Explicit:' in the subject line unmunged. I was fairly impressed. Naturally, it was deleted immediately along with all other spam in the spamtrap.
5) Even if we don't get all (or very many of them), I think that the new spam law may do some good, though it surely won't stop spam. I would just love it if we could take out the top dozen or so US spammers, which would decrease the spam volume by an order of magnitude, I should think. Spam relays don't send spam on their own, folks (at least, not yet... hrm, hope I don't give them any ideas...). Even if the law doesn't really do much of anything, I still wouldn't mind seeing spammers in jail...
Call all material defammatory then, and you won't have to worry whether the defamation was spoken or printed :]
I do this if I ever forget which is which.
(And no, I don't think there's any real difference, save that the words mean two different things and are oft confused.)
Because the only people who would watch that movie would be afraid to.
The movie theatre is dark. They're likely to be eaten by a grue...
We've already seen that Microsoft has ties to or is funding these groups privately. While I would not discourage anyone from researching it, I doubt that they're going to document everything for us and throw it up somewhere on the Internet.
Rather, I expect them to have private chats with key people (none of which would likely be documented) and to fund them, maintaining distance with statements like 'We fund a number of private groups, and our people have ties to many more, you can't draw conclusions based on that. Moreover, we have nothing to do with what they're doing now.' This leaves us with an unprovable conjecture that they're part of a Microsoft strategy, but to be fair, they're keeping a bit of plausible deniability in there, as they really do fund all sorts of things (one might want them to be more selective...) and have ties to all sorts of groups (it'd be hard not to if you have enough employees, etc.), though I will say that they have more control over who they fund than we have over whoever claims to be on "our side" and then acts like an idiot (see my journal for an example of SCO's agents provacateurs for something positively underhanded). And of course, there are folks like Enderle and Lyons who will blame "us" (insofar as there even is an "us" in some contexts) for every bad thing someone does or says.
You're right that emphasizing AdTI's conservative links is pretty much pointless (save that it's sure not to win them many friends here), but I would like to point out that the rest of it is spot-on, specifically the bits about how AdTI is little more than a hack publication hired out to write flamebait articles and generate controversy.
I refer you to my prior musings as to what they're up to here, my speculations being the only reasonable angle I can see Microsoft as having here. As for AdTI, I think that their angle on this is to hype the book they're publishing.
Linus Torvalds should sue the author for libel and defamation of character (and extend it to slander if the author is making oral statements publicly).
...
This is a private organization, as far as I can see, that relies on donations (e.g. the ones from Microsoft...). Granted, they don't seem to be a 501 (c)(3), but I suspect they would still call or consider themselves some kind of charity for media purposes.
Now then, if you see my other post, you'll see that I think that they want us to react strongly so that they can portray us in a negative light, and "Linus sues charity" is probably just the sort of headline they would like. Who, you might ask, would be crazy enough to give a headline like that? I can name at least two such people, Enderle and Lyons, both of whom should be familiar to anyone who has followed SCO vs. IBM
That's not to say, however, that he wouldn't be right to. Of course, we pretty well have to wait until they say more than they did in that blurb. It may be recklessly false, but they haven't published very much of a statement to base a lawsuit on just yet, IMHO. Apparently, they plan to publish a book soon, however, and that might have more substance (e.g. more lies), were Linus considering suing over it... My suspicions, as above, are that they're using this to get free publicity to hype their book, since curious folks would have to buy the book to read it, generating royalties for them...
*Ahem* I hate to spoil that nice thought, but Hemos appears to have taken all of those links from my (rejected) submission last night, and then forgot the media transparency link on where they get their funding. The rest appear to be exactly the same ones I submitted...
Speaking of which, here's an other good source of links to information.
Oh, and here's my other post from Groklaw, concerning what I think they're up to by throwing out inane nonsense like this press release: