Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
Raymond and Perens respond to SCO
(For general publication.) Mr. McBride, in your "Open Letter to the Open Source Community" your offer to negotiate with us comes at the end of a farrago of falsehoods, half-truths, evasions, slanders, and misrepresentations. You must do better than this. We will not attempt to erect a compromise with you on a foundation of dishonesty. Your statement that Eric Raymond was "contacted by the perpetrator" of the DDoS attack on SCO begins the falsehoods. Mr. Raymond made very clear when volunteering his information and calling for the attack to cease that he was contacted by a third-party associate of the perpetrator and does not have the perpetrator's identity to reveal. The DDoS attack ceased, and has not resumed. Mr. Raymond subsequently received emailed thanks for his action from Blake Stowell of SCO. Your implication that the attacks are a continuing threat, and that the President of the Open Source Initiative is continuing to shield their perpetrator, is therefore not merely both false and slanderous, but contradictory with SCO's own previous behavior. In all three respects it is what we in the open-source community have come to expect from SCO. If you are serious about negotiating with anyone, rather than simply posturing for the media, such behavior must cease. In fact, leaders of the open-source community have acted responsibly and swiftly to end the DDoS attacks — just as we continue to act swiftly to address IP-contamination issues when they are aired in a clear and responsible manner. This history is open to public inspection in the linux-kernel archives and elsewhere, with numerous instances on record of Linus Torvalds and others refusing code in circumstances where there is reason to believe it might be compromised by third-party IP claims. As software developers, intellectual property is our stock in trade. Whether we elect to trade our effort for money or rewards of a subtler and more enduring nature, we are instinctively respectful of concerns about IP, credit, and provenance. Our licenses (the GPL and others) work with copyright law, not against it. We reject your attempt to portray our community as a howling wilderness of IP thieves as a baseless and destructive smear. We in the open-source community are accountable. Our source code is public, exposed to scrutiny by anyone who wishes to contest its ownership. Can SCO or any other closed-source vendor say the same? Who knows what IP violations, what stripped copyrights, what stolen techniques lurk in the depths of closed-source code? Indeed, not only SCO's past representations that it was merging GPLed Linux technology into SCO Unix but Judge Debevoise's rulings in the last big lawsuit on Unix IP rights suggest strongly that SCO should clean up its own act before daring to accuse others of theft. SCO taxes IBM and others with failing to provide warranties or indemnify users against third-party IP claims, conveniently neglecting to mention that the warranties and indemnities offered by SCO and others such as Microsoft are carefully worded so that the vendor's liability is limited to the software purchase price, They thus offer no actual shield against liability claims or damages. They are, in a word, shams designed to lull users into a false sense of security -- a form of sham which we believe you press on us solely as posturing, rather than out of any genuine concern for users. We in the open-source community, and our corporate allies, refuse to play that dishonest game. You invite us to negotiate, but you have persistently refused to state a negotiable claim. You have made allegations of a million lines of copied code which are mathematically impossible given the known, publicly accessible history of Linux development. You have uttered vast conspiracy theories which fail to be vague only where they are slanderous and insulting. You have already been compelled to abandon major claims — such as the ownership of SMP technology alleged in your original complaint against IBM — on showings that they were false, and that you knew or should have known them to be false, Accordingly, we of the open-source community do not concede that there is anything to negotiate. Linux is our work and our lawful property, the distillation of twelve years of hard work, idealism, creativity, tears, joy, and sweat by hundreds of thousands of cooperating hackers all over the world. It is not yours, has never been yours, and will never be yours. If you wish to make a respectable case for contamination, show us the code. Disclose the overlaps. Specify file by file and line by line which code you believe to be infringing, and on what grounds. We will swiftly meet our responsibilities under law, either removing the allegedly infringing code or establishing that it entered Linux by routes which foreclose proprietary claims.
Yours truly, (Log in to post comments)
Raymond and Perens respond to SCO Posted Sep 10, 2003 8:44 UTC (Wed) by rmini (subscriber, #4991) [Link] Wow. SCO must really be evil if ESR and Bruce Perens coexisted peacefully long enough to agree to put both their names on this.
Raymond and Perens respond to SCO Posted Sep 10, 2003 9:02 UTC (Wed) by sphealey (guest, #1028) [Link] Who exactly appointed or elected Eric Raymond as the spokesman for the "open source community"? Other than himself?sPh
Give him a break Posted Sep 10, 2003 9:10 UTC (Wed) by dwalters (subscriber, #4207) [Link] Come on, please. Give him a break. Both ESR and Bruce Perens work tirelessly in the cause of Open Source.Maybe you don't agree with everything Eric says, but he does seem to have the ear of some people at SCO, so let's support him, and Bruce Perens in their efforts.
Give him a break Posted Sep 10, 2003 16:49 UTC (Wed) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link] > so let's support him, and Bruce Perens in their efforts.or, take his job, please.
Raymond and Perens respond to SCO Posted Sep 10, 2003 9:25 UTC (Wed) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] I don't agree with some of the things Eric says, but this letter is definitely Eric at his best. It's accurate and succinct, with a sharp edge. It seems that Eric and Bruce produce their finest when they work together.
Raymond and Perens respond to SCO Posted Sep 10, 2003 13:14 UTC (Wed) by xorbe (guest, #3165) [Link] I agree. This hit the nail on the head, big time.Awesome work guys. A letter to be proud of. /xorbe
Raymond and Perens respond to SCO Posted Sep 10, 2003 9:30 UTC (Wed) by euvitudo (subscriber, #98) [Link] Do you have a suggestion for a "better" spokesperson? I appreciate the work the ESR and BP do in furthering the cause of FS/OSS.I think that their letter was very professional and to the point. Can, and if so, will you do the same? I repeat, who shall you elect to be "our" spokesperson? Cheers!
Raymond and Perens respond to SCO Posted Sep 10, 2003 9:32 UTC (Wed) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] Well, spokesman obviously is a voluntary project. spokesman 1.0 was created by RMS,and he claimed to be the spokesman of the Free Software Community. spokesman 2.0 is incompatible with spokesman 1.0, and claims to be spokesman of the Open Source Community. spokesman 1.0 can talk to volunteers, spokesman 2.0 can talk to business people who order people to "volunteer" (like the Netscape team). spokesman 1.0 has contributed a number of complex and big programs (GCC and GNU Emacs being the biggest ones), while spokesman 2.0 has maintained a small and simple program, by making it smaller and simpler.
Raymond and Perens respond to SCO Posted Sep 10, 2003 9:38 UTC (Wed) by paul (guest, #14971) [Link] Your comment "Who exactly appointed or elected Eric Raymond as the spokesman for the "open source community"? Other than himself?" is both ridiculous and not useful. There is no specific "spokesman" for opensource. We are a community of individuals who speak for ourselves. As you may note Eric and Bruce were both named in SCO's open letter. They were simply speaking for themselves and for anyone in the community who appreciates there work, which I am one. These accusations of SCO MUST be answered. We are not all in a position to do so. If you do not agree with the position that these men have given, then publicly state your own position on SCO and stop bashing those that do.
Raymond and Perens respond to SCO Posted Sep 11, 2003 3:41 UTC (Thu) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] Mr McBride in his letter really seems to be talking to the corporate world -- to the decision makers who are seriously considering either buying a SCO license or refraining from using Linux. The letter is deliberately and explicitly addressed to "the" Open Source Community, and it accuses this group of people as a whole of participating in criminal acts, as if there were such a group.That, of course, is what he would like these decision makers to believe: that there is a conspiring group of hairy communists out there, who spend their time setting up DoS attacks and stealing code in a desperate attempt to get corporations to use their (stolen) software. SCO's letter is filled with lies, insinuations and slander like this. We -- the Open Source Commmunity, whatever it may be -- know that all this is ridiculous, but do the decision makers know it too? Mr McBride apparently (and maybe rightly) believes that in this respect the Open Source community is very much a sitting duck -- it can never defend itself against these accusations (it's sort of like an analog DoS ;-). That's why it is important that there are a few people who can and do respond, even though I do not agree with them completely. Hey, it's almost like politics. (If I ever get my OSC membership card, I'd like to have proper elections. ;-)
Raymond and Perens respond to SCO Posted Sep 10, 2003 9:55 UTC (Wed) by dbhost (guest, #3461) [Link] While I don't agree with everything that I have seen ESR or BP say, and they often publicly disagree with each other on a variety of issues, when the rubber meets the road, these two are both excellent spokespersons for the cause. If we had to have elections, I would certainly vote for both of these gentlemen as they are providing excellent results. Their public statements are well researched, and well thought out, not just knee jerk reactions and spur of the moment insinuations. What better spokespeople for Open Source / Free Software can you conjure up?
Raymond and Perens respond to SCO Posted Sep 10, 2003 11:19 UTC (Wed) by jdthood (guest, #4157) [Link] Note that Raymond and Perens were both mentioned by name in the letter to which they are replying. This gives them additional standing to make a public reply. The reason that their letter warrants a LWN headline while our comments do not ... I leave to you to discern.
Raymond and Perens respond to SCO Posted Sep 10, 2003 11:34 UTC (Wed) by torsten (guest, #4137) [Link] The "Open Source" Community is a community of individuals. If you don't agree with ESR and BP, write your own response, and send it to Dary.TEH
Raymond and Perens respond to SCO Posted Sep 10, 2003 11:38 UTC (Wed) by toon (guest, #511) [Link] > Who exactly appointed or elected Eric Raymond as the spokesman> for the "open source community" ? Holy smoke, Batman ! ESR *defined* the open source community, by I am not a member of that community (I'm a Free Software Developer), Toon Moene (current GNU Fortran maintainer). Excellent job, BTW, that reply to the SCO Open Letter.
Raymond and Perens respond to SCO Posted Sep 10, 2003 17:09 UTC (Wed) by zen (guest, #222) [Link] Perhaps remember that we are more powerful as a community to the extent we consider ourselves a community and can cooperate on issues as a community, rather than separate factions. In this vein, I consider us all part of one community. In deference to this community's founding nearly two decades ago, I name it the free software community. And within _our_ community is are the Free Software Movement and the Open Source Movement.Yet, as is so aptly demonstrated with ESR and BP's joint response to SCO, we _are_ a single community. We do have largely similar goals. We are united in our distaste, distrust and outright disgust at the kind of activities seen by SCO. I consider myself a part of our whole community. I align myself with the Free Software Movement. I respect those who choose to align with the Open Source Movement. This comment is an essentially semantic issue as is hopefully obvious. I otherwise wholeheartedly agree with your response. Add my vocal support for the work ESR and BP have done so far! Regards
Raymond and Perens respond to SCO Posted Sep 10, 2003 12:09 UTC (Wed) by phil42 (guest, #5175) [Link] esr has my vote. He has successfully represented the linux community foryears.
Raymond and Perens respond to SCO Posted Sep 11, 2003 4:22 UTC (Thu) by airman (subscriber, #7341) [Link] He definitely has my vote too, though I often wish he'd just keep his mouth shut ;PWithout the Cathedral and TAOUP some time ago, I'd still be producing huge NT/C++ templates-stuffed apps, whereas I now earn my living coding neat small Linux/C apps in the proper Unix way. And this with all the fun I thought I had lost. Quite the spokesman I needed at this time, even if not a perfect one...
Raymond and Perens respond to SCO Posted Sep 10, 2003 9:18 UTC (Wed) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link] SCO's "open letter" was carried by financial services such as Reuters(e.g. see here http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/030909/tech_sco_linux_1.html ). Raymond, Perens, and anbody else who wants to counteract SCOs public dance in the press needs to try and get their releases carried by these channels. In this case, they have a special claim to equal time. PR Newswire is a good entry point ( http://www.prnewswire.com ). Perhaps the RedHat fund or similar can be used to pay for any costs involved. Retuers could also be contacted directly, but in this case they probably picked up the story from PR Newswire. Business Wire is a similar competitor to Reuters.
Raymond and Perens respond to SCO Posted Sep 10, 2003 10:12 UTC (Wed) by dwalters (subscriber, #4207) [Link] I agree with this. I always find it annoying when I type SCOX at Yahoo! and I see virtually all of SCO's press releases in the Headlines section (which in turn, seems to drive the stock price up), and hardly any press releases, except maybe one or two from IBM, to represent any opposing points of view.
Yahoo! + SCO Posted Sep 11, 2003 18:57 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Just took a look at http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/030909/tech_sco_linux_1.html. Nice bunch of misrepresentations, that one..."SCO, which owns the rights to Unix, the networking software program upon which Linux is based..." They don't, and Linux isn't "based on Unix". It goes on, and even claims no Linux advocates where available for comment. No link to answer or comment (even if not shown publically, enough _calm_, to the point, detailed, comments might bring a clue to a reporter or two...).
Raymond and Perens respond to SCO Posted Sep 10, 2003 11:06 UTC (Wed) by davidw (subscriber, #947) [Link] Excellent point - I watch in frustration as the corporate channels carry all the crap from SCO with none of the other side of the story. I wonder what can be done about it.
Raymond and Perens respond to SCO Posted Sep 10, 2003 11:22 UTC (Wed) by murry (guest, #13033) [Link] The access to news media is a systemic part of the problem for the open source community. ESR's excellent (but reactive) response to Darl's letter may not be getting equal distribution. This is a problem. It's solved by a business decision to build a proactive response capability.Anyone with a checkbook can contract with a newswire to publish a press release that is distributed to global, national, regional and local media "circuits". Darl's open letter is a polished press release distributed for a fee by PR Newswire. Reuters picked it up on the wire because a) they have been following and reporting the story and b) it involves several publically-traded companies. Typically, the newswires "vet" releases for inflammatory and accusatory statements, especially statements aimed at public companies. PR agencies earn their fees in part by weasel-wording flames and accusations to get by the vetting process. Darl's letter is exquisitely weasel-worded. It took time to write this letter, and it is aimed at people who do not have the deep insight and background of most open source advocates. People who populate juries. This letter is a substitute for positive character witnesses. It is manufactured evidence of corporate citizenship and good will. And to those who know better, it is disgusting. In addition to use of a newswire for distribution, SCO's machine is probably also "pitching and placing" each release with a small but carefully selected group of journalists and analysts. The professional approach is to make calls and offer the release by e-mail as an exclusive or semi-exclusive, and this always grabs journalists who enjoy scooping their competitors. Should the open source community fight fire with fire? Should ESR's response letter have been a press release distributed by a newswire, with an earnest pitch effort in advance? I for one would applaud if OSS assembled a response center to fight fire with fire. My hand is in the air as a volunteer. My first recommendation is to shift from a reactive to proactive strategy. When you think about all the good OSS stories out there, proactive becomes highly attractive.
Raymond and Perens respond to SCO Posted Sep 10, 2003 11:42 UTC (Wed) by murry (guest, #13033) [Link] Further to my advocacy for proactive rather than reactive PR, here's one of the main reasons: http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/22254.htmlOSS has to do a better PR job. A proactive approach would also include commissioning the research.
Raymond and Perens respond to SCO Posted Sep 19, 2003 19:52 UTC (Fri) by rhkramer (guest, #15212) [Link] murry,Thanks for raising your hand -- I hope someone sees it and takes advantage of it. I hadn't realized that press releases were a business. If we (the open source community) get into that business, we need to do it right -- it sounds like you have some experience And, I agree with the criticisms raised in other posts about this email, and want to reiterate one and add another. Hacker is the wrong word. Isn't another one of the fundamental principles of good communication to know your audience? "farrago"?? What's the man in the street going to think? Randy Kramer
PR Newswire cost Posted Sep 10, 2003 11:44 UTC (Wed) by frazier (subscriber, #3060) [Link] Perhaps the RedHat fund or similar can be used to pay for any costs involved. Retuers could also be contacted directly, but in this case they probably picked up the story from PR Newswire. Business Wire is a similar competitor to Reuters.Here's the pices I was just quoted by phone for national distribution (more for international use) $100 : Startup fee $600 : First 400 words $150 : additional 100 wordsI don't know if businesswire is less expensive or not.
Raymond and Perens respond to SCO Posted Sep 10, 2003 10:25 UTC (Wed) by TheOneKEA (subscriber, #615) [Link] I liked the tone of this letter. I think ESR and BP did an excellent job writing a very levelheaded response to the craziness emanating from SCO. I especially appreciate their comments regarding the openness of the OSS process and the behavior of Linus and CO when confronted with code that may have IP problems.I think ESR and BP's letter is exactly the sort of sober, calm response needed to cut through the FUD emanating from SCO. Excellent job, both of you.
Raymond and Perens respond to SCO Posted Sep 10, 2003 11:40 UTC (Wed) by jdthood (guest, #4157) [Link] It is a good letter but I will offer some stylistic advice.First of all, the tone of the letter strikes me as too heated. We are being baited; it is important that Darl not get too much of a rise out of us. Second, given what has been said about SCO's executives in forums such as this one, I doubt that it is a good idea to start making accusations of slander. These accusations add to the heat of the letter and they invite SCO to go looking for evidence of slander against themselves, which they will have no trouble finding. Third, there is a lot of purple prose in the letter. This also contributes to the shrill tone. Here is how I would patch it. - to erect a compromise on a foundation of dishonesty - then such behavior must cease - swiftly - we are instinctively respectful of concerns about IP - SCO taxes IBM and others with failing to provide warranties - a form of sham which we believe you press on us solely as posturing - You have uttered vast conspiracy theories
Raymond and Perens respond to SCO Posted Sep 10, 2003 13:40 UTC (Wed) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link] Also note that prior to March 2003 at least, the comment aboutMicrosoft only providing warranty up to the value of the software license was true. Around that time (coincidentally just before SCO sued IBM) Microsoft announced a new program where they would provide support for legal costs of any customer that was sued for IP issues due to using Microsoft software. The Didiot woman was all over the press praising Microsoft for this and criticizing IBM for not matching it.
Microsoft new warranty is for enterprise only and has loopholes Posted Sep 10, 2003 20:30 UTC (Wed) by NZheretic (guest, #409) [Link] Even Microsoft's May 27th changes which apply only to customers under enterprise licensing contracts, which Microsoft claims grants greater immunity, contains loop holes which greatly negate Microsoft's liability.https://www.microsoft.com/licensing/programs/contractupdates.asp https://www.microsoft.com/licensing/downloads/mba.doc The new section 6 clause contain exceptions QUOTE Loophole #1 This would effectively still indemnify Microsoft against most of the Timeline Inc patent claims, as it is the developer/end user's code ( even visual basic code ) which would be in violation of Timeline's patent claims. Microsoft has a history of licensing third party code and patents in such a manner that still leaves developers and users exposed to IP threats. Even going back to the LZH/GIF Unisys patents, http://www.unisys.com/about__unisys/lzw/ QUOTE "Microsoft Corporation obtained a license under the above Unisys LZW patents in September, 1996. Microsoft's license does NOT extend to software developers or third parties who use Microsoft toolkit, language, development or operating system products to provide GIF read/write and/or any other LZW capabilities in their own products(e.g., by way of DLLs and APIs)." UNQUOTE Microsoft also licensed database technology for Microsoft's SQL server from Timeline Inc, under similar license terms as did with Unisys. This license did not grant Microsoft the right to sublicense to third party developers to extend functionality, in some cases even restricting the use of visual basic. Unlike companies like Oracle Corporation and others, Microsoft chose a cheaper option for the license which left third party developers, users of Microsoft SQL Server,Office and other Microsoft products at risk of being sued by Timeline Inc for violation of Timeline Inc patents. Timeline Inc asked Microsoft to upgrade to a similar license used by Oracle, but Microsoft refused, so the whole issue went to court and in 2002, Timeline Inc won. http://www.timeline.com/021903PR.htm http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/53/29419.html How many other cases exist where Microsoft has included third party technology in it products, but has also taken the cheaper licensing option and left developers and even users exposed to the threat of lawsuit? Due to the closed nature of the proprietary business model, how can third party developers even check?
Raymond and Perens respond to SCO Posted Sep 10, 2003 14:06 UTC (Wed) by minichaz (subscriber, #630) [Link] If this is intended for public consumption (which it clearly is) then use of the word "hacker" to refer to people who code for fun may not be wise. While we understand the meaning, Joe Public may not and this is the kind of thing that SCO may try to spin.Just a thought,
Use of the term "hacker" Posted Sep 10, 2003 14:20 UTC (Wed) by dwalters (subscriber, #4207) [Link] This is a point I too have pondered when reading press releases that are meant for public consumption containing the word "hacker".On the one hand, I think legitimate programmers would like to reclaim the word, but at this point, in the eyes of the general public, the term "hacker" seems to have been lost to the black-hats. For press releases aimed at the programmer community, most people will understand what is meant by the term hacker. But for the general public, I fear it simply conjours up the image of a criminal cracker.
Use of the term "hacker" Posted Sep 10, 2003 16:57 UTC (Wed) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link] > On the one hand, I think legitimate programmers would like to reclaim the word, but at this point, inthe eyes of the general public, the term "hacker" seems to have been lost to the black-hats This reminds me of a comment Robert Heinlein made in the interstitial material in his compilation _Expanded_Universe_. He noted that it was a good idea in converations with Russians to introduce the word "democracy" as an *antonym* for "communist countries" -- since that's how they described those countries behind the Iron Curtain. We're in the same situation. I've always avoided calling myself a hacker in public -- mostly because I considered it a bit self-important, given my apprehension of the term. But I'd be honored to be called that, and I believe it's important to our community to have that term available, and that it's important to defend it. And no, I don't think it's impossible to defend it. It's just not going to be easy.
Use of the term "hacker" Posted Sep 11, 2003 5:21 UTC (Thu) by minichaz (subscriber, #630) [Link] It is a term that I would also like to defend but this letter is not the place to do so. It is more important that the information gets to Joe Public in a clear and unambiguous (from the his/her perspective) form.
Use of the term "hacker" Posted Sep 11, 2003 7:31 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] I don't think it's impossible, either. But then again, I don't think it was ever impossible for socialists to defend their views against massively-wealthy press operators in the United States and in England. Does anyome remember the way people wrote about leftists in the 1950's?I'd like to reclaim that word from the mouths of the beast myself, but I think if we really want it back, we're going to need enough allies in the press. Let's look at it another way: How many words did people with African ancestors have to float by the Caucasian-dominated American press, before they felt comfortable with the way that American press presented them? I can think of at least four. On the other hand, I do believe we need to defend ourselves. Socialist failed so badly at it here in the U.S. that common workers very well may lose their overtime pay. So, yes, we should defend our honor. But how?
Raymond and Perens respond to SCO Posted Sep 10, 2003 14:38 UTC (Wed) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] Agreed. Unless Eric wants to single-handedly change American culture into a more precise one, that term has to go. I understand what it means, as do all of our readers, but remember this like you remember your mother:Sinners are very good at filtering your words into what they want to hear (and what they want others to believe.) "Hacker" sounds mean and nasty, and SCO wants us to all look that way. Boy...not until Darl McBride started spouting off did I really understand what "sin" means. If the Christians are right, I'd hate to be that guy come the end of the line.
Raymond and Perens respond to SCO Posted Sep 10, 2003 14:13 UTC (Wed) by pointwood (subscriber, #2814) [Link] Thanks for all your hard work!
Raymond and Perens respond to SCO Posted Sep 11, 2003 9:40 UTC (Thu) by kfox (guest, #4767) [Link] To the SCO CEO:Nuts! The Open Source Community.
Raymond and Perens respond to SCO Posted Sep 11, 2003 9:55 UTC (Thu) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] Penguin #1 has err, well, peed over Mr McBride's letter as well.
|
|||||||||||||