SCO in the news

Posted May 6, 2003 6:35 UTC (Tue) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link]

It should go without saying that we in the community of GNU/Linux and other free software users do not condone or encourage this sort of thing. Principled opposition to SCO's actions is the position we should take, not vandalism. Our case depends on us retaining the moral high ground, which means that destructive actions such as sabotaging the computers or blocking the net access of SCO, or any other offending group, must not be tolerated. We should oppose their actions through creative means instead, by speaking, writing, and coding, to prove that our community, like the internet it depends on, routes around damaging and obstructive forces.

All of that said, though...couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch, neh? :-)

Posted May 6, 2003 7:30 UTC (Tue) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link]

Ddos attacks are stupid and pointless. It just so happens that when you seriously piss of enough millions of people, the chanse is high that among those, there will be atleast one with poor enough judgement that he (or she!) thinks that such an avenue is worthwhile.

I don't see how SCO can or will influence me anyway. Either (imho likely) there's nothing wrong in the Linux kernel, and they are just blowing smoke in an attempt to inflate their stock-price. Or there is some function or whatever that originated in SCO-owned code, in which case I'm sure it's about ten minutes of work to remove the offending piece.

It can even be argued that this is not needed. SCO *themselves* in *this minute* is distributing the stock linux-kernel, under the GPL. That is, they *themselves* are giving the world the permission to use all code in the Linux-kernel under the terms of the GPL. I don't see how they can possibly be a) claiming that such distribution harms them and at the same time b) do it themselves.

Posted May 6, 2003 14:31 UTC (Tue) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link]

What we really need is an LDOS (Legal Denial of Service) attack on SCO. You know, things like boycotts. I suppose that most of the Linux faithful are already doing this de fact, as so far as I can tell nobody really cares that much about the SCO distribution who also is the sort to read LWN.net and get all bothered about their stupid court actions.

I'd like to see it go further. E.g., we should boycott all United Linux outfits until either they dissassociated themselves from SCO, or kick SCO out of United Linux. I know that lots of people like SUSE, and that this seems harsh, but the community should make clear that SCO's behavior is not acceptable-- without resorting to a response which itself is unacceptable (such as a ddos attack).

-Rob

Posted May 6, 2003 19:41 UTC (Tue) by llywrch (guest, #9903) [Link]

Innumerable electrons have been used to vent anger at the SCO Group for their brain-dead strategy, but I've yet to see anyone try to seriously try to understand why they thought they'd have any chance at winning this lawsuit. Anyone who has considered taking on IBM must know that they have a battalion of lawyers on salary to do exactly what the Open for Business article describes: wear down any opposing party with their own motions and other legal paper, until either they settle or drop the case.

So what _was_ MacBride thinking?

A look at his resume (which I found on the SCO Group website) offers a hint: his most visible achievement was raising venture capital during the late 1990s for a couple of start-ups. And it is intreguing that he is barely mentioned as being associated with either one. (He is mentioned as an emeritus senior VP for the second company -- PointServe -- but this may be an out-of-date page that needs updating.) He briefly worked after that point for Franklin Covey -- but "briefly" is the word that seems to describe all of his posts since leaving Novell.

In short, he spent his time securing funding during a time when anyone with sufficient tenacity could do it for almost any high-tech company. Well, sufficient tenacity -- & willingness to sign away enough of the start-up -- which might explain why he left the two start-ups that he was involved in.

Putting this bit of speculation aside, it is clear from his resume that MacBride has little technical experience: while he has a BS from Brigham Young, his resume does not mention what discipline it was in. And while he was a VP for embedded systems at Novell, I find it noteworthy that when I think of Novell's achievements, embedded systems is not at the top of the list. The fact he lists his sales accomplishments for both Novell and for IKON (an office copier company), strengthens this suspicion of a lack of technical knowledge.

What does this mean? I strongly suspect that MacBride does not understand the Bazaar model of Open Source/Free Software at all! This is supported by the SCO Group's claim that Linux was to SCO what a bicycle is to a professional-written operating system, something no one who worked on the Caldera Linux distribution would seriously claim. MacBride cannot imagine a world where amateurs -- that is people who are not paid but contribute their labor out of love for the topic -- can produce software at least as good as professionals.

If this is MacBride's justification for deciding to sue IBM, then it would appear to him to be a slam-dunk win: where else could Linux find the professional developers to make it a viable offering? And since this would be such a blinding epiphany to him, he would not need any influence form anyone else (e.g. Microsoft), & would be able to convince the rest of the executive committee and the board of directors to follow him off to tilt at windmills.

The SCO Group is not looking to be bought off or out by IBM: MacBride thinks he has stumbled across a huge pot of gold that will make everything all right with his company. Unfortunately, he is mistaken. If IBM contributed any intellectual property that belongs to SCO to Linux development, it was minor, and/or in error. And by the time the rest of his company realizes that, drops the suit & gets rid of MacBride, the SCO Group will be out of money, find its customers have gone, & be bankrupt.

And unfortunately, MacBride will probably find himself in another leadership position in the high-tech industry where he will make a similar mistake.

Geoff