Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
The fear war against Linux (News.com)
News.com has an
article by Bruce Perens on the announcement that Microsoft will license
SCO's Unix patents and the source code. "Who really benefits from
this mess? Microsoft, whose involvement in getting a defeated Unix company
to take on the missionary work of spreading FUD (fear, uncertainty and
doubt) about Linux is finally coming to light."
(Log in to post comments)
The fear war against Linux (News.com) Posted May 20, 2003 7:01 UTC (Tue) by jarek (guest, #4105) [Link] When this case is thrown out of court, Linux and GPL will experience something similar toAT&T and BSD. We should remember that day by officially naming it Linux Independence Day and kindly ask SCO and the likes to put a LID on it ;-) /jarek
How appropriate. Posted May 20, 2003 10:57 UTC (Tue) by cr (guest, #3685) [Link] To ham radio people such as Bruce, a "lid" is a poor operator, someone who won't play nice with others out of arrogance or incompetence or both. LID sounds about right for SCO at this point.
MS gain FUD if SCO lose Posted May 20, 2003 13:52 UTC (Tue) by fergal (subscriber, #602) [Link] From the articleThe fact is, SCO's potential to collect royalties from the Linux kernel or anything else connected with the GPL is nil.If SCO lose because of the GPL MS will dancing and singing about the GPL being a cancer and an IP destroyer. Although informed people know this is rubbish, it would be best to win the case without recourse to the GPL if at all possible.
MS gain FUD if SCO lose Posted May 20, 2003 14:35 UTC (Tue) by allesfresser (guest, #216) [Link] Well, that's exactly what the GPL is for... to prevent "intellectual property" from becoming the smokescreen by which moneygrubbers keep people in the dark and charge them dearly for it. If MS has a tantrum, it's not our fault. Give them a time-out. A long one. Without supper. ;-)
MS gain FUD if SCO lose Posted May 20, 2003 14:48 UTC (Tue) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] While I fully agree with your sentiments, unfortunately most of the world doesn't.In fact, most of the world-- or at least most of this country (USA)-- doens't have a clue about the issues. If anything, they think "intellectual property means protecting the rights of creators and is good for business and therefore is good for the economy so therefore we have to protect it", mostly because that's the line they've been fed by the media and by various politicians who get a lot of campaign donations from the media. There's already a House caucus on "strengthening" intellectual property (which in my view needs strengthening about as much as anti-communistic activities needed strengthening back in the McCarthy years). The leader of that has said bad things about the GPL in the past. It's not very much of a stretch to envision a world where the GPL becomes effectively outlawed by future copyright law in the USA, if the GPL is what makes SCO lose this case. MS and a lot of other powerful lobbyists would love to "strengthen" intellectual property law in this way (since after all cross-licencing and proprietary software is the fertile ground on which the technological marvels of today grew, or so we are supposed to believe), and most of the world has no clue how much this strengthening is going to cost them. We already have truly insane laws like the DMCA and (in some states) the super-DMCA, and the CPDTPA has been taken seriously. If you think insane legislation won't pass, you aren't paying attention. Sure, the courts *should* throw out any anti-GPL copyright laws, but will they? I wouldn't count on it. If MS and others can make a case that sounds good to Congress and to the common man that, however specious, says "the GPL is destroying intellectual property and therefore American business", you'd better believe that various congresscritters and presidents are going to line up to "do something about this danger to our country". -Rob
MS gain FUD if SCO lose Posted May 20, 2003 15:06 UTC (Tue) by allesfresser (guest, #216) [Link] Well, yes, all that is true... but then I guess the USA will just keep sliding farther behind the rest of the world in technology, won't it? Do you think the hackers in India, Brazil, et. al. particularly want the USA to be always in front? I daresay they (we?) wouldn't mind if the jingoists got humbled once in a while. If MS wants to squander the US technology industry and give it away for the sake of more money for them, then I guess the rest of the world will gladly take the lead (and the future).
MS gain FUD if SCO lose Posted May 20, 2003 18:18 UTC (Tue) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] As an American, I hope you're right. Meanwhile, we're too busy driving around in SUV's with American flags flying off of them (and pictures of bald eagles on the windows) to worry about such things.
MS gain FUD if SCO lose Posted May 20, 2003 20:42 UTC (Tue) by bcw1000 (guest, #11345) [Link] Maybe. Our PM, Helen Clark, is working hard to get Free Trade agreements with the US - many countries are. This often requires dependent agreements on legal issues.So, the legal climate in the US can strongly influence other countries via the markets. The market decides, and if the strongest market is the US... I don't like it, but smaller, poorer countries don't have much to sell to each other to rely on without the "US centric" global economy.
MS gain FUD if SCO lose Posted May 22, 2003 14:13 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] Tragic, innit? The strange thing is, by being the world's trade clearing-house and having all commodities denominated in dollars, the USA is actually utterly dependent on the rest of the world. If only we were to trade in something else (euros, or gold), America would be humbled.
I got a spam advertising septic tank equipment the other day... I thought it was a joke email from Australia. But no, it was an American spam, advertising septic tank equipment. Jonathan
MS gain FUD if SCO lose Posted May 20, 2003 15:06 UTC (Tue) by fergal (subscriber, #602) [Link] You miss my point, I'm not talking about an MS tantrum, I'm talking about giving MS ammo to badmouth the GPL. They will say "look at SCO, they lost everything because of the evil, IP destroying GPL. We tried to warn you all to stay clear of it but you didn't listen. So line up over here for your perfectly safe copies of Win XP". As usual this will be lies but in a media war where the truth requires more than 30 seconds to understand and where most of the journalists have already been bought and payed for, truth and lies aren't very relevant.Two possible ways to argue the case are: 1 - look at the code and prove no code was stolen or 2 - we're not even going to look at the code because you released it yourselves under the GPL so even if it was stolen, you gave it to us - haha If #2 is what wins the case then MS will have a field day telling everybody about the "dangers" of the GPL and opensource. So lets hope we win with #1 instead.
MS gain FUD if SCO lose Posted May 20, 2003 16:09 UTC (Tue) by allesfresser (guest, #216) [Link] Yes, it's always better to win honestly (with no "stolen" code) and yes, the GPL wasn't designed to trap people with. (How ironic that MS would try to use the spin that way...) But actually, MS is right in a way... the GPL *was* initially designed to destroy their particular style of "intellectual property"--because they want to distort and twist the laws to their own profit by locking things up behind lawyers rather than making inventions and concepts open for all to use. That is exactly what RMS was trying to prevent by making the GPL--it is deliberately and inherently in conflict with their mindset and way of doing things. So I'm not surprised at all that they don't like it--one doesn't usually like a tack placed on one's chair. The problem for us is that we have to live (at least for now) in a situation where MS can make things unpleasant for those that dare to fall out of line in the sheep pen. And since (as you pointed out) the cards are mostly stacked against us in regards to the press and the US government, it may be very unpleasant for a while. But then again, any war is unpleasant. I myself keep going in this cause because I want my children to be able to have the freedom I grew up with before the greedsters got their hands in everything. Didn't a certain Mr. Jefferson once write, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."? Nothing great is achieved without struggle, and this seems to be such a time.
MS gain FUD if SCO lose Posted May 20, 2003 19:54 UTC (Tue) by abclements (guest, #11343) [Link] Maybe the OpenSouce Community should use MS tatics. Something in the vain of-Propietary software is bad because it produces incompatiblities...just look at quicktime, realplayer, media player. Oh wait, that would be the TRUTH. :-)
MS gain FUD if SCO lose Posted May 21, 2003 15:44 UTC (Wed) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] Note that most companies are more likely to benefit if #2 wins. Many companies take software under GPL and use it internally. They would be affected if another company sues them for the use of the "stolen" code.Very few companies would ever be releasing software under the GPL without knowing what they are releasing. And for those who do, WYGIWYD - what you get is what you deserve.
MS gain FUD if SCO lose Posted May 20, 2003 17:17 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] OK, let's say that some small amount of SCO code somehow got into the Linux kernel, and the courts rule that, because of the GPL, the world gets the right to keep using the code under the GPL against SCO's wishes. Then the obvious solution is for the kernel hackers to strike out the offending code even though they don't have to, track down the guilty party who besmirched the name of Linux, and hand him over to SCO. We don't need their stinking code, and we have full archives of the kernel mailing list as well as of each version of the kernel, so tracing the source of every line of Linux will not be that hard. By the same token, if SCO is found to have illegally taken Linux code, mercy is appropriate. After SCO has paid everyone's court costs, made a public apology and stripped the GPL code out of their product, they could be allowed to continue to sell their product, assuming that anyone wants it.
MS gain FUD if SCO lose Posted May 21, 2003 5:48 UTC (Wed) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] It actually doesn't have anything to do with the GPL.SCO claims they found the potential violations last year. If they had been shipping under the BSD license instead of the GPL, it still wouldn't change the fact that they cannot revoke the license retroactively six months later.
The fear war against Linux (News.com) Posted May 20, 2003 14:43 UTC (Tue) by DaveK (subscriber, #2531) [Link] Or is this perhaps a tacit admission from Redomnd that within their proprietary codebase there might be code which is 'borrowed' from others and may include parts of that to which SCO lays claim?
The fear war against Linux (News.com) Posted May 20, 2003 15:12 UTC (Tue) by jdthood (subscriber, #4157) [Link] In the article, Bruce Perens wrote:> I earlier thought the suit could be a bid to force IBM > to acquire SCO at a cheaper price than the cool billion > dollars being demanded to settle the case. Bruce wasn't the only one that thought that, but where is the > Microsoft hardly needs an SCO source license. Its license Another interesting theory, but where is the evidence of I support Bruce Perens's efforts. However, Bruce should be DaveK wrote: More speculation. allesfresser wrote: That is true at the macro level: the growing trove of GPL However, it is *not* the purpose of the GPL to undermine
The fear war against Linux (News.com) Posted May 20, 2003 18:38 UTC (Tue) by allesfresser (guest, #216) [Link] The pointy bit of the GPL (the part that makes it a tack on Mr. Gates' chair) seems to be RMS' strong advocacy of the view that sharing is normal. The GPL embodies this assumption. If you want to make a piece of software proprietary, and you are in an environment where lots of GPL code is floating around, you have a problem to work out, because you have to essentially make it clean-room style because you as a proprietary developer are intentionally sealing your code off from the rest of the world. The 'normal' thing to do would be to participate in the common good by sharing your unique code and by using others' code to bring your package to light faster by not reinventing the wheel. But (according to the RMS view) since you're being recalcitrant and ornery by refusing to share your code, you should bear the burden of making sure that your code is truly sealed off, not the other way round. The creative commons shouldn't bear the burden of your selfishness. I know that's a radical departure from the reigning zeitgeist, but that is what I have synthesized as the mindset behind the GPL, and I for one agree with it. Whether or not it works to 'keep all the programmers from starving' or whatever the latest FUD is, I don't care. If there is a need for software to be written, it will be written, and someone will figure out a way to eat while it's being written. The development model doesn't matter on that point. The point is, sharing makes us all richer. Not sharing makes us all poorer in the long run.
The fear war against Linux (News.com) Posted May 20, 2003 21:57 UTC (Tue) by cpm (guest, #3554) [Link] Win2K SP2# strings ftp.exe | grep Copy I sent a letter to the Regents of the University of California a few
|
|
||||||||||||