| |||||||||||
Linus responds to SCO
Dear Darl,
Thank you so much for your letter. We are happy that you agree that customers need to know that Open Source is legal and stable, and we heartily agree with that sentence of your letter. The others don't seem to make as much sense, but we find the dialogue refreshing. However, we have to sadly decline taking business model advice from a company that seems to have squandered all its money (that it made off a Linux IPO, I might add, since there's a nice bit of irony there), and now seems to play the U.S. legal system as a lottery. We in the Open Source group continue to believe in technology as a way of driving customer interest and demand. Also, we find your references to a negotiating table somewhat confusing, since there doesn't seem to be anything to negotiate about. SCO has yet to show any infringing IP in the Open Source domain, but we wait with bated breath for when you will actually care to inform us about what you are blathering about. All of our source code is out in the open, and we welcome you to point to any particular piece you might disagree with. Until then, please accept our gratitude for your submission, Yours truly, Linus Torvalds (Log in to post comments)
Linus responds to SCO Posted Sep 11, 2003 10:05 UTC (Thu) by null (guest, #5786) [Link] There is something about the way Linus writes that always strikes me as refreshing and honest. This letter is no exception. Bravo, let's keep making noise, Darl can claim Linux as SCO's a million times, but saying it doesn't make it so.-sb
Is this actually from Linus? Posted Sep 11, 2003 10:33 UTC (Thu) by willy (subscriber, #9762) [Link] There's something about the writing style that just doesn't strikeme as being Linus-like. Where was this letter sent to originally? Sorry, but it seems to me this may be a forgery.
Is this actually from Linus? Posted Sep 11, 2003 10:37 UTC (Thu) by cpeterso (guest, #305) [Link] What is the source of this letter? It certainly reads like a hoax.
Re: Is this actually from Linus? Posted Sep 11, 2003 10:42 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] Why do you say that? Have you read Linus' messages before? It soundsexactly like him. If this is a forgery the person did a good job.
Re: Is this actually from Linus? Posted Sep 11, 2003 11:14 UTC (Thu) by willy (subscriber, #9762) [Link] > Why do you say that? Have you read Linus' messages before? It sounds> exactly like him. If this is a forgery the person did a good job. Yes, I'm a kernel hacker myself, so I hang on his every word ;-) One of the things that strikes me as inauthentic about this text is
Re: Is this actually from Linus? Posted Sep 11, 2003 11:15 UTC (Thu) by danielpf (subscriber, #4723) [Link] I am not used to see so much deference from Linus: "Thank you so much for your letter." I know the letter style is supposed to be ironic, but still, Dan
Is this actually from Linus? Posted Sep 11, 2003 11:39 UTC (Thu) by jre (guest, #2807) [Link] Jeez, people -- the "Open Source community" may be informal, but it's hardly an underground. Can't someone just ask him? Jon -- what's the source on this one?
Linus responds to SCO Posted Sep 11, 2003 10:33 UTC (Thu) by Spike (guest, #14160) [Link] Honest and edgy with just a hint of sarcasm. If only the US legal system were moving faster so we could get back to business as usual turning out the finest software in the world.I will however miss the humor that SCOX has interjected into my daily routine when they are finally gone. Keep the press releases and open letters coming Darl, every time you open your mouth you make a bigger fool of yourself and SCOX.
Linus responds to SCO Posted Sep 11, 2003 11:37 UTC (Thu) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] I believe it's irresponsible to publish such documents without any reference to their source. If Linus sent this message to LWN, please say so. If you took it from another source, please disclose it.You see, the discussion is now whether Linus wrote it or not. We are dealing with dishonest opponents, and it's very important that we don't let anyone to mislead us.
Linus responds to SCO Posted Sep 11, 2003 11:40 UTC (Thu) by dwalters (subscriber, #4207) [Link] I trust LWN to verify the authenticity of their sources. If LWN says it's from Linus, I have no reason to disbelieve them.
Linus responds to SCO Posted Sep 11, 2003 12:12 UTC (Thu) by Thanatopsis (guest, #14019) [Link] *SIGH*http://infoworld.com/article/03/09/10/HNtorvaldssco_1.html It's real already.
Linus responds to SCO Posted Sep 11, 2003 20:23 UTC (Thu) by mbp (guest, #2737) [Link] Being printed by an IDG rag does not make something real.I think it probably *is* real, but IT industry publications are not famous for painstaking journalism and fact-checking.
Authenticity Posted Sep 11, 2003 22:22 UTC (Thu) by dwalters (subscriber, #4207) [Link] Isn't it interesting how many people have expressed doubts about the authenticity of this communication from Linus Torvalds.I don't recall there being any similiar discussions about the authenticity of recent press release announcements from Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond. I have no doubt that this came from Linus Torvalds, but perhaps the fact that a few people have expressed doubts about it shows that this was a little out of character for him. Maybe the open letter from Darl McBride was just a little more than he could take without feeling he HAD to say something.
Not really all that interesting Posted Sep 12, 2003 9:27 UTC (Fri) by brokeninside (guest, #8722) [Link] Perens and Raymond both hosted their open letter on their respective web sites along with submitting it as a press release. Linus has not done the same. This leaves the open letter from Linus having a lesser amount of trustworthiness.It is also relevent that forged emails from Linus have made their way to the LKML and other places in the past. Some of these have been remarkably in character. That said, I doubt whether or not Linus actually wrote this particular letter is of no real consequence provided that he agrees with the sentiment and the fashion in which that sentiment was expressed.
Authenticity Posted Sep 12, 2003 9:28 UTC (Fri) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] My doubts have nothing to do with contents of the Linus' letter. It's the wording of the LWN article that made me (and probably others) suspicious:An "open response" from Linus Torvalds to Darl McBride's letter is being circulatedIf the editors said - "we've got a responce from Linus" or "Linus has published his responce", there would be no question. But it sounded as if the editor wasn't sure if the letter was original.
Linus responds to SCO Posted Sep 11, 2003 23:30 UTC (Thu) by mbp (guest, #2737) [Link] > IT industry publications are not famous for painstaking journalism and> fact-checking. LWN is an exception, of course.
Linus responds to SCO Posted Sep 11, 2003 13:04 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] This is LinusThis is Linus This is Linus... darl adjusts his voder/vocoder... This is Linus... ...does it sound right yet, guys? ;) No really---I was kinda depressed before I read this...I love to read that guy's stuff.... ...even if I don't understand 1/10th of it (no rocket scientist here....)
Linus responds to SCO Posted Sep 11, 2003 17:01 UTC (Thu) by wweber (guest, #11678) [Link] The letter was less heated than the Raymond/Perens letter, so it has the tone that is really what is called for here.
SCO should be challenged to run ESR's comparator and produce MD5 hashes Posted Sep 11, 2003 13:57 UTC (Thu) by RobDavies (guest, #9930) [Link] Then we can see where they've infringed on GPL source, or broken theBerkely copyright clause.
SCO should be challenged to run ESR's comparator and produce MD5 hashes Posted Sep 12, 2003 6:38 UTC (Fri) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] I have a strong sense that Eric already has those hashes.I think IBM has a long list of similarities between Linux and SysV, and an army of people busy checking where the code came from. Then there'll be a lot of hush-hush phone calls to kernel hackers before: KABOOOOMMMM A class action by kernel hackers (funded by IBM) will seek to bar distribution of SCO's software on the grounds of GPL violation. Unlike SCO's claims against linux, though, the original filing will contain an appendix of a long list of violations, detailed line by line. This is pure speculation, but I'm just picking up too many vibes from people in the know who's grins are wider than a Cheshire Cat. Cheers,
SCO should be challenged to run ESR's comparator and produce MD5 hashes Posted Sep 12, 2003 8:53 UTC (Fri) by RobDavies (guest, #9930) [Link] Eric has the source, without SCO, and as has been noted, SCO actuallyneeded help from UNIX Heritage soceity to get System III source *evil chuckle* The point is, they smeared Linux, Free & Open Source with accusations about not respecting IP, never mind that they rely on the same products in their proprietary offerings eg) samba, and SCO need gcc for decent development platform. Now we all know, who is more likely to borrow code. But in general media, we have been on defensive whole time. Never mind fact, that SCO are trying to stop IBM, Sequent, SGI etc use the fruits of their own work, in Linux, which is the real IP theft, it was never SCO's development effort. So look for ways to have them on defensive, they have a lot to risk from an independant audit of their stuff. Then when they're back pedalling, they get hit with the class action you mentioned. Get journalists to ask them why they won't do X, let them smell who's hiding things, SCO have spun a good yarn, it's time to dismantle their credibility.
SCO should be challenged to run ESR's comparator and produce MD5 hashes Posted Sep 12, 2003 8:55 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] That would be nice, in light of what I've been seeing in the one-sided financial press lately.There's nothing I'd like to see more, than a major scandal in the proprietary-software industry. I can't tell you how many bucks I've spent on proprietary software that wound up being orphaned or abandoned, and how many times I've heard complaints that their products were dug out of code that people wanted to share.
|
|||||||||||