Bar: "Funny thing though, you never referred to DM as a 'Fuckwit'."
Actually, Bar, should you prefer read the first draft of that article, you will find that I did characterize Mr. McBride in response to Paragraph 13, as follows:
"Mr. McBride, the only way to defend this in court is to tell the judge that you are a complete fucking idiot, and that all previous mangement was equally incompetent. Even if a court buys that explanation, I hardly think they'll reward SCO's utter stupidity to the tune of 3 billion dollars. It's far more likely that they will require SCO to pay IBM's court costs instead."
Any other false assumptions you'd like to share in promoting your fitness to belong in the same complete fucking idiot class as Darl 'Fuckwit' McBride?
dipipanone: "Anyway, while you're on warmcat though..."
Yes, while you're on warmcat you may want to keep something else in mind:
Warmcat is the handle for Andy Green, one of the leaders in getting Linux to work on the Xbox, which I'm sure most people here will agree was a pretty awesome hack.
This is quality of members Pam Jones is deleting from Groklaw.
Ninthwave: "I meant you have been posting this on an Anoymous login on Groklaw, not without signature... I should have said I have seen your comments since your account has been deleted on groklaw. Is that a good try again?"
Yes, that's much more accurate. The way you said it the first time made it sound like I was anonymously trolling there. Thank you for clarifying it.
Ninthwave: "I guess the gist of all I have tried to say is, how do you fix this. I think it is past the complaining phase and do you just fork groklaw and compete against it with your vision of open structure."
Well, that's one of the things you do, and many of 'The Groklaw Disappeared', including me, are now contributing to
www.IP-Wars.Net instead. IP-Wars was created by Jeff Causey in the wake of the latest round of user account anonymizations, deletions, and subsequent resignations, at Groklaw.
GL primarily focuses on SCO and software patents - and given Pam Jones' previous affiliation with OSRM, she doesn't have a lot credibility on the patent issues.
IP-Wars.net is focusing on a much broader range of intellectual property issues and will probably be better to able to sustain itself better than GL, and continue providing important information once the SCO v. World skirmishes are over. If you suspect I've chosen the word 'skirmishes' there because there are likely to be further battles over intellectual property in the future, then you've suspected correctly.
IP-Wars is also run on far more open principles, with articles submitted by anyone, and front-paged if its good enough to get people to vote for it. There are no post deletions, as it uses the SCOOP moderation system to vote SPAM, etc. down.
Finally, Jeff has committed to listening to the community, has actually done so, repeatedly, and has committed to running the site on the same principles as Open Source and Creative Commons, going so far as to guarantee that deep-linking - which is prohibited at Groklaw - will be allowed at IP-Wars by placing the entire site, including user comments, under a Creative Commons Attribution - Share-Alike license.
Ninthwave: "I will concede your point that framework for the comment system in groklaw is broken, in that it does not satisfy everyone in the community. But the question is how do you fix it? Or how will you fix it? I don't think you will change groklaw..."
We can't. Only Pam Jones can change it. But the voices raised in opposition to her policies and whim-based moderation have had some effect. We have forced Pam to make some changes.
For instance, after a discussion on Y!SCOX, the licensing grant was changed throughout the Groklaw site to clarify that only articles and some other administrative content were licensed under CCL, whereas the posts were copyright to the owners and not licensed at all, absent specific notification by the poster. Pam also prohibited deep-linking as part of the change. It's not really what anyone wanted, but it is an improvement to the extent that Pam's intent is now clarified and available for everyone to see.
Another change is the new wording in the Groklaw policies and guidelines that warn anyone posting there that their attributions will be removed in the event of an account deletion, and that they should sig their posts if they want to be ensured of retaining attribution. Again, not an ideal solution, but at least Pam's carefree attitude toward attribution is now in words.
In the meantime, you stay vocal about the continuing ethical breaches, such as serving up deleted members' posts anonymously, and take it from there if they are not resolved.
Actually, br3n's not gone yet, though Pam has threatened br3n, in a post on Groklaw, with "thinking deep thoughts" about doing deleting her.
Yes, this is Pam's way of getting agreement on GL -- not by arguing the points, but by threatening with deletion anyone who disagrees with her, whether at Groklaw, or *anywhere on the internet*.
Brilliant strategy, Pam. I mean, hey, it worked for Stalin.
ninthwave: "I have never understood the war that got started over post deletions."
You fail to understand that the war is not about post deletions. I have asked repeatedly for my posts to be deleted, and would be overjoyed if they were, but instead they remain there at Groklaw, with the author now listed as "Anonymous".
So the 'war' is about authorial attribution, not post deletion.
And quite frankly, anyone who wishes to blame software for changing every post of a deleted member to read "Authored by: Anonymous" instead of "Authored by: JohnGabriel" is doing as much crack Darl McBride.
How anyone can claim with a straight face that the line "Authored by: MeatspaceName" is not authorial attribution worthy of respect as copyright management information is beyond me.
Oh well, at least here I can discuss it without having my posts deleted.
div_2n: "This is a tired old argument drummed up by people that don't like it when their comments get deleted on a website belonging to someone else and their comments violate the rules by the operator and is being perpetuated potentially by SCO shills."
Hmm, well, no one likes that, do they?
On the other hand, you are also mischaracterizing the issue. Pam Jones deletes accounts *AND* the authorial attributions of the members posts.
In other words, Pam continues to use the work of people she's deleted, but she takes away the credit for their contributions.
Removal of authorial attributions, as copyright management information, is also potential grounds for a DMCA take-down order. And a probable copyright infringement. While none of the current Groklaw disappeared intend to follow-up on those grounds, Pam Jones is placing her site at risk from some litigious bastard looking for a reason to take out her site.
Whether you agree with those assessments or not is irrelevant, as the action is clearly unethical in any event.
tsqr: Considering PJ's moderation policy... being considered a troll on Groklaw is more a badge of honor than an insult these days.
This is sadly and unfortunately true. I wish I had the mod points to pull your post out of flame-bait territory, where it does not belong. Hopefully some other moderator will notice it and pull it back into the thread.
ninthwave: "My id here is the same as on Groklaw and I have had some serious disagreement with PJ and my account has remained."
Why don't you tell us about them? I guarantee your account will be sandoxed within a week and removed within six weeks if you do.
Alternately, having even said as much as you have on/., you may find that your account will be gone soon anyway.
I have never broken any of the posting guidelines at Groklaw, yet my account was removed anyway, and the authorial attributions for all my posts, over 425 at latest count, many quite lengthy, have been removed.
When I asked what the underlying offense was, I was told in an e-mail from Pam Jones, "You know why."
Well, I don't. And still don't. The only plausible hypothesis, seemingly confirmed by Pam, though she's so vague it's hard to know for sure, is that I posted some commentary at Y!SCOX to that made Pam's life "difficult" by pointing out that she need to clarify GL's CCL licensing grant, because the way it was worded implied that posts as well as articles were licensed under the CCL.
After clarifying the licensing notice, as suggested, she then went forth and called everyone involved in the discussion "SCO shills, trolls, and astroturfers".
While we're on the subject of articles outlining SCO's problems in the past, please check out my journal article "A Linux User's Response to Darl McBride's Open Letter to the Open Source Community", originally published here on Sept. 11, 2003:
SCO's sales of "SCO IP in Linux" licenses, such as the license it sold to EV1, clearly breach the GPL, in that they a) charge royalties for GPL'd code, b) restrict the licensee to use only, and don't permit modification, and c) infringe the copyrights of all the other Linux contributors who have not given permission to license their code under any other terms but the GPL.
On the other hand, IBM's other arguments that SCO is out of compliance due to "repudiating" and "disclaiming" the GPL might not be valid. SCO probably has a free speech right to criticize, repudiate, and disclaim the GPL without forgoing its benefits unless they actually breach the license.
Since they have breached the license via their "SCO IP In Linux License" scam, I expect the summary judgement to be granted in IBM's favor on those grounds.
From motion to hearing to decision, most of the rulings so far have taken 2-4 months.
For each motion, the other side gets to respond. Then the initiator of the motion gets to respond. A hearing is usually scheduled a few weeks to a month after the last response is due to be submitted, though when both parties stipulate for more time to work on the motions the last response can sometimes go in a day or two before the hearing. The hearing can also be re-scheduled.
"What would happen if a truly objective study resulted in evidence that would mean that SCO or one of the other parties claiming ownership could win their cases?"
I don't think we'd be around to worry about it, as hell would have already frozen over.
Groklaw has a story on the SD Times FUD Award, as well as some comments from Red Hat's new counsel regarding FUD activities as responses to the disruptive technologies of Open Source, and that Red Hat will defend against it in the future.
Also, IBM has just filed a memorandum opposing SCO's motion to extend the court schedule. It sounds boring, I know, but what it basically says is that there is no reason to extend the court date, because any delays in the schedule have been caused by SCO's own malfeasance, and IBM intends to ask for summary judgement on everything anyway.
Here are some of the choicer quotes:
"As stated, the most egregious example of SCO's discovery misconduct is SCO's persistent refusal to identify with specificity the UNIX System V source code that forms the basis of its claims against IBM."
"IBM believes that discovery in this case should be conducted according to the schedule to which the parties agreed almost a year ago. In fact, as we will lay out in forthcoming submissions most (if not all) of the claims in the suit can be resolved on summary judgment without more discovery. SCO should not be allowed, through its own misconduct, to prolong this case merely to serve its own interests in cultivating the fear, uncertainty and doubt SCO has created regarding Linux and IBM's products."
"In the instant case, SCO has not shown "good cause" for extending fact discovery in the case for an additional nine months and putting off trial until September 2005.... [E]ach of SCO's stated reasons for requestinfg the extension are attributable entirely to SCO's own stalling tactics during the course of discovery and reflect an utter lack of diligence."
Slashdot Mirror
Bar: "Funny thing though, you never referred to DM as a 'Fuckwit'."
Actually, Bar, should you prefer read the first draft of that article, you will find that I did characterize Mr. McBride in response to Paragraph 13, as follows:
"Mr. McBride, the only way to defend this in court is to tell the judge that you are a complete fucking idiot, and that all previous mangement was equally incompetent. Even if a court buys that explanation, I hardly think they'll reward SCO's utter stupidity to the tune of 3 billion dollars. It's far more likely that they will require SCO to pay IBM's court costs instead."
-- http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=77770&cid
Any other false assumptions you'd like to share in promoting your fitness to belong in the same complete fucking idiot class as Darl 'Fuckwit' McBride?
Yes. She's given every indication that if she did she'd use them.
dipipanone: "Anyway, while you're on warmcat though..."
Yes, while you're on warmcat you may want to keep something else in mind:
Warmcat is the handle for Andy Green, one of the leaders in getting Linux to work on the Xbox, which I'm sure most people here will agree was a pretty awesome hack.
This is quality of members Pam Jones is deleting from Groklaw.
Ninthwave: "I meant you have been posting this on an Anoymous login on Groklaw, not without signature... I should have said I have seen your comments since your account has been deleted on groklaw. Is that a good try again?"Ninthwave: "I guess the gist of all I have tried to say is, how do you fix this. I think it is past the complaining phase and do you just fork groklaw and compete against it with your vision of open structure."Ninthwave: "I will concede your point that framework for the comment system in groklaw is broken, in that it does not satisfy everyone in the community. But the question is how do you fix it? Or how will you fix it? I don't think you will change groklaw..."
ninthwave: "I take it you have been posting this on Groklaw. Anoymously."
Bzzzt. Try again, ninthwave. I manually sig'ed every post I made on this subject at Groklaw.
In fact, all the information to answer your question can be determined from my single - means '1' - journal article.
If you're too lazy or stupid to take it from there, I'm afraid I decline to help you. Especially as your motives are obviously less than charitable.
Fuckwit.
Actually, br3n's not gone yet, though Pam has threatened br3n, in a post on Groklaw, with "thinking deep thoughts" about doing deleting her.
Yes, this is Pam's way of getting agreement on GL -- not by arguing the points, but by threatening with deletion anyone who disagrees with her, whether at Groklaw, or *anywhere on the internet*.
Brilliant strategy, Pam. I mean, hey, it worked for Stalin.
Got a problem differentiating between 'many' and 'all', Bar?
Seems like Pam Jones has a similiar problem with 'meum' and 'teum'.
ninthwave: "I have never understood the war that got started over post deletions."
You fail to understand that the war is not about post deletions. I have asked repeatedly for my posts to be deleted, and would be overjoyed if they were, but instead they remain there at Groklaw, with the author now listed as "Anonymous".
So the 'war' is about authorial attribution, not post deletion.
And quite frankly, anyone who wishes to blame software for changing every post of a deleted member to read "Authored by: Anonymous" instead of "Authored by: JohnGabriel" is doing as much crack Darl McBride.
How anyone can claim with a straight face that the line "Authored by: MeatspaceName" is not authorial attribution worthy of respect as copyright management information is beyond me.
Oh well, at least here I can discuss it without having my posts deleted.
-- John Gabriel
AC: "I trust PJ's understanding of the law (it's her job), more than the anti-Groklaw crowd."
Seems like most of the so-called "Pro-Groklaw" crowd is contributing to this conversation as "Anonymous Coward". What are you afraid of?
div_2n: "This is a tired old argument drummed up by people that don't like it when their comments get deleted on a website belonging to someone else and their comments violate the rules by the operator and is being perpetuated potentially by SCO shills."
Hmm, well, no one likes that, do they?
On the other hand, you are also mischaracterizing the issue. Pam Jones deletes accounts *AND* the authorial attributions of the members posts.
In other words, Pam continues to use the work of people she's deleted, but she takes away the credit for their contributions.
Removal of authorial attributions, as copyright management information, is also potential grounds for a DMCA take-down order. And a probable copyright infringement. While none of the current Groklaw disappeared intend to follow-up on those grounds, Pam Jones is placing her site at risk from some litigious bastard looking for a reason to take out her site.
Whether you agree with those assessments or not is irrelevant, as the action is clearly unethical in any event.
-- John Gabriel
tsqr: Considering PJ's moderation policy... being considered a troll on Groklaw is more a badge of honor than an insult these days.
This is sadly and unfortunately true. I wish I had the mod points to pull your post out of flame-bait territory, where it does not belong. Hopefully some other moderator will notice it and pull it back into the thread.
ninthwave: "My id here is the same as on Groklaw and I have had some serious disagreement with PJ and my account has remained."
/., you may find that your account will be gone soon anyway.
Why don't you tell us about them? I guarantee your account will be sandoxed within a week and removed within six weeks if you do.
Alternately, having even said as much as you have on
I have never broken any of the posting guidelines at Groklaw, yet my account was removed anyway, and the authorial attributions for all my posts, over 425 at latest count, many quite lengthy, have been removed.
When I asked what the underlying offense was, I was told in an e-mail from Pam Jones, "You know why."
Well, I don't. And still don't. The only plausible hypothesis, seemingly confirmed by Pam, though she's so vague it's hard to know for sure, is that I posted some commentary at Y!SCOX to that made Pam's life "difficult" by pointing out that she need to clarify GL's CCL licensing grant, because the way it was worded implied that posts as well as articles were licensed under the CCL.
After clarifying the licensing notice, as suggested, she then went forth and called everyone involved in the discussion "SCO shills, trolls, and astroturfers".
Yeah, a real reasonable person to deal with.
Slavinsli: "He admits on the front page that he has several thousand
shares and that he hopes to mitigate the low value perception of
SCOs business."
He has several thousand shares *SHORTED*, Fuckwit.
Why don't you try telling the truth instead of spreading bullshit?
While we're on the subject of articles outlining SCO's problems in the past, please check out my journal article "A Linux User's Response to Darl McBride's Open Letter to the Open Source Community", originally published here on Sept. 11, 2003:
http://slashdot.org/~MuParadigm/journal
I know the feeling...
-- John Gabriel
SCO's sales of "SCO IP in Linux" licenses, such as the license it sold to EV1, clearly breach the GPL, in that they a) charge royalties for GPL'd code, b) restrict the licensee to use only, and don't permit modification, and c) infringe the copyrights of all the other Linux contributors who have not given permission to license their code under any other terms but the GPL.
On the other hand, IBM's other arguments that SCO is out of compliance due to "repudiating" and "disclaiming" the GPL might not be valid. SCO probably has a free speech right to criticize, repudiate, and disclaim the GPL without forgoing its benefits unless they actually breach the license.
Since they have breached the license via their "SCO IP In Linux License" scam, I expect the summary judgement to be granted in IBM's favor on those grounds.
From motion to hearing to decision, most of the rulings so far have taken 2-4 months.
For each motion, the other side gets to respond. Then the initiator of the motion gets to respond. A hearing is usually scheduled a few weeks to a month after the last response is due to be submitted, though when both parties stipulate for more time to work on the motions the last response can sometimes go in a day or two before the hearing. The hearing can also be re-scheduled.
I'm 39 years old. Trust me. They're real.
So glad I don't live in your world.
"Great... lets see when we can download the world's first mobile phone anti-virus!"
Yeah. It's a joke until we all need 128 MB of RAM on our phones just for anti-virus software and the OS needed to run it.
OTOH, maybe Embedded Linux will save us all.
"What would happen if a truly objective study resulted in evidence that would mean that SCO or one of the other parties claiming ownership could win their cases?"
I don't think we'd be around to worry about it, as hell would have already frozen over.
Groklaw has a story on the SD Times FUD Award, as well as some comments from Red Hat's new counsel regarding FUD activities as responses to the disruptive technologies of Open Source, and that Red Hat will defend against it in the future.
Also, IBM has just filed a memorandum opposing SCO's motion to extend the court schedule. It sounds boring, I know, but what it basically says is that there is no reason to extend the court date, because any delays in the schedule have been caused by SCO's own malfeasance, and IBM intends to ask for summary judgement on everything anyway.
Here are some of the choicer quotes:
A tiff of the full document can be found at Pacer's public SCO v. IBM page.
The PDF can be found at Frank Sorenson's sco.tuxrocks.com site.
Don't you think it's about time to quit SCO then?
I'm sure you'll see a drastic improvement of your symptons within a month.
erick99: McBride "looks the part that he plays in life: thug."
I always thought he looked more like one of those brokers you'd find in a boiler room type operation.
Oh, wait...