| |||||||||||||
Got it wrong again!Got it wrong again!Posted Oct 13, 2003 3:19 UTC (Mon) by rdtennent (guest, #11327)Parent article: Copyright Lawsuit Is Turnabout for SCO (New York Times) It's astonishing how clueless these journalists and analysts are. The relevance of this other case is that it is SCO that has been sued by IBM for copyright infringement, not the other way round. The case described represents one of many cases in which the GPL has been quietly vindicated out of court. The suit against IBM is a contract dispute and has nothing to do with the GPL.
(Log in to post comments)
Look on the bright side Posted Oct 13, 2003 5:33 UTC (Mon) by fyodor (guest, #3481) [Link] That is an excellent point and these errors should be sent to Markoff. HOWEVER, I am still thrilled with this article overall. The general tone is that Canopy are a bunch of hypocrites and they even mention the stock kiting allegations. They note how "SCO has provided little, if any, public evidence that its copyright has been violated." and they include a good quote by Bruce Perens. 3 months ago most of the financial press articles were complete FUD, uncritically parroting SCO press releases. While there are a few serious mistakes, this article demonstrates how the tone has changed and it puts SCO on the defensive. Instead of making more ridiculous accusations, they left SCO/Canopy people saying things like "SCO picked a big fight and it flowed over to the Linux environment and we found ourselves in an awkward position" and "I know I've been painted in a rough light. I hope that our companies are our legacy and not our lawsuits." The tide is turning. Yay! -Fyodor
Got it wrong again! Posted Oct 13, 2003 5:36 UTC (Mon) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] Actually, that's what the story says. SCO, like its spin-off Lineo can be forced to settle because of violating copyrights for GPLed software. Anyway, the story lacks any insight and is not worth reading (IMHO).
What do you expect, it's just the NYT Posted Oct 13, 2003 7:43 UTC (Mon) by raph (guest, #326) [Link] This article is just more evidence that the corporate media is completely unable to do even a mediocre job covering technology. Among the additional errors:* Gets the name of MontaVista Software wrong. * Quotes Laura DiDio as a credible source. Well, at least he didn't quote Enderle. * By using the phrase "copyright infringement that is at the heart of SCO's claim against I.B.M.", he promotes the misunderstanding that SCOX has actually brought a copyright claim against IBM. In fact, it has not brought any such copyright claim. * By using the phrase, "the Unix operating system", he promotes the misunderstanding that there is one such beast and that SCOX owns it. I'm sure others can find more such errors. These seem like the kinds of mistakes a novice reporter, fresh out of J-school, would make, but in fact John Markoff is one of the more highly regarded technology "journalists" in the field. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but readers of LWN and Groklaw get authoritative technology news and research into SCOX. Compared to what the Net, at its best, can provide, the NYT is looking tatty indeed.
What do you expect, it's just the Press Posted Oct 13, 2003 12:53 UTC (Mon) by cpm (guest, #3554) [Link] "This article is just more evidence that the corporate media is completely unable to do even a mediocre job covering technology."I've seldom been in a posistion to have first hand facts about Have you ever known the press to accurately report on anything I really wonder what it is exactly, that the press thinks
What do you expect, it's just the Press Posted Oct 15, 2003 11:56 UTC (Wed) by raz (guest, #16034) [Link] I really wonder what it is exactly, that the press thinks it does for a living. Lots of people get this wrong. What the press does for a living is gather audience attention and sell it to advertisers. Contrary to popular belief, the press views readers not as customers, but as product.
Got it wrong again! Posted Oct 13, 2003 15:11 UTC (Mon) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] I hadn't heard about the lawsuit anywhere else in the press. It's always good for a reporter to get the scoop.One thing that annoys me is that people are sort of saying the Lineo case is like the SCO case and the subsequent FUD attack. In the SCO case, SCO released all the source under the GPL and you can still download it from their website. That makes the code perfectly legal to distribute under the GPL. To me the fact that MontaVista had a case where SCO is just lying is the major difference between the two cases.
|
|||||||||||||