| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
The EFF's anti-SCO congressional letter campaignThe EFF's anti-SCO congressional letter campaignPosted Aug 29, 2003 16:07 UTC (Fri) by skybunny (guest, #4478)Parent article: The EFF's anti-SCO congressional letter campaign I'm confused. What is the letter writing campaign asking Congress to do? I can see the sentiment behind the campaign, but what is it meant to accomplish? I am writing to express my opposition to the SCO Group, Inc.'s decision to sue individual users of the Linux operating system and to request your intervention. This hasn't happened yet. It isn't a decision, legally, until SCO actually does something. In this case, that means a specific license violation lawsuit that likely appears in a civil court. In any case, once that happens, a defense may be mounted by whoever is sued. Even more problematic, SCO has (granted, contradicting themselves, which is another issue) gone on record now as saying they never intended to sue Linux companies at all: No plans to sue Linux companies, says SCO. It would seem, of course, that talk is cheap in either direction. What is 'intervention' by the Commerce committee? Congress has the power to pass laws, not force injunctions through the courts barring behaviour. If the EFF wants to see a law passed or changed, I really want to know what it is - particularly if they're asking tens of thousands of Linux users to sign the message as a show of support. This letter does nothing to explain any specific action they'd like to see Congress take. If anything, one might consider a letter to the SEC (possible securities fraud), or the Justice Department (for a query into general federal charges). But Congress? As a constituent, I urge you to do what you can to stop this bad behavior. I don't disagree that this is 'bad behavior', but I also believe that the proper arena for this right now is the courts. We're still waiting to see if any of two suits (IBM v. SCO in a countersuit, or RedHat v. SCO) will produce an injunction and simply make the problem of SCO's Linux licensing campaign go away. Isn't the proper thing to do to wait for the courts to make a decision, and then seek out Congress for specific legislative relief, should that fail?
(Log in to post comments)
SCO doing something Posted Aug 29, 2003 16:18 UTC (Fri) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] They have done a lot already.* They have sent invoices for goods not delivered (assuming that you don't * They have made false accusations (assuming you don't believe they own the * They have tried to interfere with Linux vendors. * They may have abused the stock market. * They may have colluded with a monopolist to reduce competition. * They continue to make claims, retract those claims, make similar but I think there is plenty of material to work with if Congress wanted to do
The EFF's anti-SCO congressional letter campaign Posted Aug 29, 2003 16:57 UTC (Fri) by dwalters (guest, #4207) [Link] You are correct.SCO now appear to have gone on record saying they won't sue end-users, so this EFF letter may be jumping the gun. If someone at the EFF is reading this, please consider toning it down or changing the content a little. Also, the EFF site should encourage people to write their own letter, preferably handwritten. ---- Congressperson: So one of my constituents has written to me saying that you are sueing individual users of the Linux operating system. SCO: That's a lie. The SCO Group had never planned to sue any Linux companies, had no concrete plans to sue anyone and also no current plans to take a commercial Linux customer to court. Look here's a press release in which we said so. Congressperson: OK [looks at SCO's press release, and archives letter in the circular file].
The EFF's anti-SCO congressional letter campaign Posted Aug 29, 2003 17:36 UTC (Fri) by namaseit (guest, #13940) [Link] I dont seem to understand your point. SCO is trying to demolish the very principles andideas that free software is built upon. They are trying to take the rights that millions have worked to preserve, the idea that software should be free for all to use. They've taken this to full open WAR. What do you want the community to do? Sit back and watch them FUD Linux all the way to town. SCO dug its own grave, and its time to show it, its backers, and everyone in the future that they cannot destroy Linux or the GPL. Our community is too strong and too pationate to let that ever happen.
The EFF's anti-SCO congressional letter campaign Posted Aug 29, 2003 18:22 UTC (Fri) by dwalters (guest, #4207) [Link] My point is that if you're going to write to your congressperson, make sure what you're writing is accurate, and isn't something SCO will be able to easily deny. What do you want the community to do? Sit back and watch them FUD Linux all the way to town? Of course not. But if FUD's the issue, then write that in your letter to your congressperson. The EFF boilerplate letter says that SCO have made the decision to sue individual users of Linux. But actually, they haven't!
The EFF's anti-SCO congressional letter campaign Posted Aug 29, 2003 18:29 UTC (Fri) by bwaldow (guest, #14579) [Link] Yes, we should do something. But using Congress to do something here is like using a fish to loosen a rusted nut - it's not the right tool.Congress's job is to make Federal laws, subject to the dictates of the Constitution. The Executive branch's job is to carry out those laws, subject to the dictates of the Constitution. The Judiciary's (Courts) job is to see the laws are applied fairly when there's a dispute, subject to the dictates of the Constitution. (No one has authority except as proceeds from the Constitution.) The existing laws will handle this situation just fine. It may be appropriate to involve the Executive organisations to get them carried out (the SEC, the Attorney's Office, etc.) but not Congress. If we want different Federal laws, we involve Congress (we don't need them here). If we want the laws enforced, we involve the Executive branch. If there's an argument about who's right, we involve the Courts. Existing law, if applied, will deal with SCO nicely. Involving Congress is a waste of time and money.
The EFF's anti-SCO congressional letter campaign Posted Aug 30, 2003 5:02 UTC (Sat) by namaseit (guest, #13940) [Link] Well we are going to run into congress today or tomorrow. There are many companiesforeign and domestic that would love to see Free Software outlawed. The more Free Software threatens them, the more wild these things are going to get. I think it is good to at least introduce our congress leaders of a rising sitiuation. One that I, and you, know will escalate to something much larger down the road, it might not be SCO, but it will be someone.
The EFF's anti-SCO congressional letter campaign Posted Aug 29, 2003 18:58 UTC (Fri) by daniel (subscriber, #3181) [Link] SCO now appear to have gone on record saying they won't sue end-users, so this EFF letter may be jumping the gun.If someone at the EFF is reading this, please consider toning it down or changing the content a little. Also, the EFF site should encourage people to write their own letter, preferably handwritten. The have already backpedelled on that. It's quite clear that "SCO promise" is an oxymoron. There's no reason to state anything less than the facts about SCO. I don't see any reason to avoid the use of the word "fraud" either. Look at the Bre-X stock fraud. There is nothing original about SCO's strategy, except that the scam this time involves fanciful legal theories instead of salted core samples. Oh, and it's intended to hurt more than just greedy stock investors. Regards, Daniel
|
|
||||||||||||