Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Commentary: IBM will nullify SCO's Linux threat (News.com)
Forrester Research predicts that IBM will build a consortium to pay off
SCO--or buy it outright, according to this News.com
article. "Enterprises should not stop their Linux plans. Why
not? Three reasons based on a risk/benefit analysis. First, the
cost-benefit of migrating high-priced Unix on RISC servers to low-cost
Linux on Intel servers is highly positive. Second, the risk that tiny SCO
can muster the resources to effectively litigate against even one or two of
the 1,500 companies it has threatened is low. And three, IBM will further
dilute that risk by intervening to eliminate the threat of legal
action."
(Log in to post comments)
Commentary: confuses music piracy with Open Source Posted May 27, 2003 20:42 UTC (Tue) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link] Great. The article equates the "music downloading phenomenon" to the "open source movement" without explaining that it is only as a way around a barrier to distribution that the two are in any way similar (and dubiously at that). That article didn't help things, IMHO.
Commentary: confuses music piracy with Open Source Posted May 27, 2003 22:25 UTC (Tue) by neoprene (guest, #8520) [Link] The fact alone that SCO distributed the Linux kernel makes their claims on proprietary stuff in the kernel-code null and void thanks to the GPL.This articles writer has not read the GPL as have not the SCOundrels. SCO's actions speaks of stockmarket manupilations. The traders will beleive the lies and bouy the stock. Then the crap will hit the fan and 10 cents a share will look lovely.
Commentary: confuses music piracy with Open Source Posted May 28, 2003 4:01 UTC (Wed) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] The fact that they knowingly distributed it for 18 months is the real kicker.
Commentary: confuses music piracy with Open Source Posted May 28, 2003 0:53 UTC (Wed) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link] > without explaining that it is only as a way around a barrier todistribution ... Did we read two different articles? Cause it seemed perfectly clear to *me*...
Commentary: confuses music piracy with Open Source Posted May 28, 2003 1:39 UTC (Wed) by amikins (guest, #451) [Link] Quite clear over here, too.
Commentary: confuses music piracy with Open Source Posted May 28, 2003 1:43 UTC (Wed) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link] You left out the emboldened "only" from my post. That was key. Here's the paragraph I was referring to in my post:Open source is too powerful and pervasive to be stopped. Open-source software, like music downloading, is a social phenomenon that uses the Internet to circumvent obstructions to distribution. This doesn't mean that licensing laws or intellectual property rights disappear. But it does mean that companies must accept the Internet-enabled distribution phenomenon and build new business models that support it--such as Apple Computer recently has done with music downloads.Of course this positively identifies Open Source with music downloading with regard to distribution, but it does not limit the comparison to circumventing distribution obstructions. This paragraph will leave the ignorant with the feeling that Open Source is like music downloading. Also, the paragraph doesn't explain what distribution barriers Open Source overcomes, leaving the reader to guess and, since casual readers understand how music downloading overcomes the pesky payment problem, the same may surmise Open Source equates to piracy. A simple "Of course, Open Source is released as such by the author unlike downloading music which is often released without the rights holder's permission" would limit the comparison as (likely) was intended. (Warning: gratuitous Hitler analogy) If someone claims that Winston Churchill is like Adolf Hitler because they both led their respective countries politically and militarily during the Second World War, there is the grave possibility that one could inadvertently leave the impression that Winston Churchill was generally like Adolf Hitler. Clarifying the comparison would be in order. (Alas, I'm left to using "like Adolf Hitler" analogies to make a point...which means I probably lost said point ;)
Commentary: confuses music piracy with Open Source Posted May 28, 2003 4:00 UTC (Wed) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link] Ah, well on third reading, the article does lead a reasonable person to see a difference between illegal downloading and rights-holder-sanctioned downloading.It's just that I'm not very reasonable >;0
Commentary: confuses music piracy with Open Source Posted May 28, 2003 17:11 UTC (Wed) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link] Yeah, Godwin's Law is a bitch, ain't it?The real problem with your analogy is that Free/Open Source software, too, by and large, "gets around the pesky payment problem"... since most of it is Free (Beer), too. And that makes it, as you say, a less accurate analogy, on both sides of the fence.
Commentary: IBM will nullify SCO's Linux threat (News.com) Posted May 27, 2003 22:44 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] Only if they dont buy it!... otherwise the libel will always be on Linux...And in the future if IBM happens (shit happens)to be in dire straits, would they sue the "the Jour" deep pocket of the time???... ok, ok, no more nasty thoughts... but SCO allegations are so balantly stupid and without merit (they only benefit M$ FUD) that only something close to a croocked judje ( remember M$ trials?) would pass it trough the first session!... And by the end of the day, is it, or isn't it clear, that Linux will only have same peace if it faces and clear wins from M$ in the world adoption game..., and that's impossible without a massive Desktop campaign!... Any IT professional (without MSEC) that thinks that M$ is nice, smooth and full of merits, then he/she can call me biased or worst!...
Commentary: IBM will nullify SCO's Linux threat (News.com) Posted May 28, 2003 5:11 UTC (Wed) by darthmdh (guest, #8032) [Link] SCO's Linux threat....Oh yeah, hand me some more of that military intelligence, baby! I don't see the point in paying off SCO or buying them outright, those strategies are written from the viewpoint that SCO is right. The reality is, they have done nothing more than make unproven, groundless, and in some countries downright illegal accusations. There's nothing there to pay off, and SCO don't make a single thing worth buying. They sold their soul to Microsoft, let them burn like everyone else who made that same fatal mistake.
|
|
||||||||||||