Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
SCO Targets Torvalds, Stallman (Forbes)
Here is a Forbes
article on the SCO Group's latest round of subpoenas. There's not much
that's new here, but it is amusing to see reporter Daniel Lyons, who has
bought almost everything SCO has said without question, begin to notice
that the company is not being entirely straightforward with him.
"Oddly enough, on Nov. 11, SCO Executive Vice President Christopher
Sontag complained to Forbes about IBM's decision to send subpoenas to
investors and analysts who supported SCO.... So why didn't Sontag mention
that, uh, SCO itself was about
to target Torvalds and Stallman with subpoenas? SCO's spokesman says Sontag
and Darl McBride, SCO's chief executive, did not know that SCO's lawyers
were planning the move. But the 'Who's on first?' act is tough to swallow
since it turns out SCO notified IBM of its plans to seek discovery from
these parties more than a month ago, on Oct. 5."
(Log in to post comments)
SCO Targets Torvalds, Stallman (Forbes) Posted Nov 14, 2003 16:45 UTC (Fri) by acar (guest, #10082) [Link] It seems like these gentlemen who dedicated their talents to public benefit may need some public help to cover their legal expenses. If there is a fund raising effort, please post the information. I would like to contribute.
SCO Targets Torvalds, Stallman (Forbes) Posted Nov 14, 2003 17:10 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] That's a funny question. Neither men provide any way to financially assist them. Stallman will have Eben Moglen assisting him, but both Stallman and Moglen are unpaid volunteers. Not sure how to help Linus, although I reckon he has a pretty fat salary.I reckon Stallman would ask people to donate money to FSF (donate.fsf.org). i.e. help the cause that this legal time-waster will take him away from.
SCO Targets Torvalds, Stallman (Forbes) Posted Nov 14, 2003 21:52 UTC (Fri) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] But dosent Linus go to court in the quality of a expert withness ?He does not stand accused of anything, does he ? One time more SCO is trying to gain PR dividends for their masters FUDs, something long time ago devised by their vocal twisted leadership. But this gun is going to shoot backwards, since i belive its almost impossible that Linus or Stallman are going to confess something they haven't done, only to please SCO... and at the end of the day no FUD will be able to say about Linux/FLOSS leaders, that they are convicted criminals, like a corporation that we all very well known.
Wow! Posted Nov 14, 2003 16:58 UTC (Fri) by jre (guest, #2807) [Link] The article contains the following:"Stallman's GNU/Linux operating system is not the target of SCO's suit. Linux, the program SCO is targeting, is not an operating system, but only the kernel of the GNU/Linux operating system, which could run using a different kernel." I can only conclude that the writer has somehow acquired a clue. Please, someone, anyone at Forbes -- grab this guy, shake him, and get him to tell you: "Who are you, and what have you done with Daniel Lyons?"
Wow! Posted Nov 14, 2003 17:31 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] I have heard little positive impression of Forbes amongst the technically knoledgeable or the free-software advocators.I have also noticed that the American press seems to know how to sniff out where the money is, and become the American corporate sycophant press. Add that to the fact that people actually allow journalists to remain this clueless, and you get: Stupid people who know how to curry favor from the rich. Gee.....sounds like what the original settlers were trying to get away from. Isn't that interesting?
Wow! Posted Nov 14, 2003 19:02 UTC (Fri) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] What I find weird is how Forbes, which can generally tell where the money is, seems to generally believe SCO when it talks about IBM. You'd think that Forbes would notice that IBM rounds off its net worth by SCO's value. If IBM had known how annoying SCO would be in the press, they'd probably have bought SCO out of their advertizing budget and considered it money well spent.
Wow! Posted Nov 14, 2003 19:57 UTC (Fri) by oak (subscriber, #2786) [Link] Well, the question of a legal validity of GPL licence is a risk to IBM (who doesn't have a definitive answer about GPL to its clients), so I don't think they mind making a precedent of it too much.It doesn't matter if SCO in the short run throws mud all around as on the long run everybody taking SCO seriously will be laughing "stock" of others.
Wow! Posted Nov 14, 2003 22:19 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] What would make me happier than anything is if the underlying issues could be resolved indefinitely.The problem is that the United States government appears to have bet the farm on copyrights, and I suspect that this will seriously damage world culture, at the very least (think of all the orphaned or neglected films that could have gone into the public domain by now, not to mention the billions of words of fiction and non-fiction that have been written since 1903, and are no longer available to new readers because the publisher doesn't think they're worthwhile enough even to donate to the public domain, or is so greedy as to keep them bottled up. Again, here we have rich people deciding what artworks shall live or die. This is proposterous. With this Linux fight, we're taling about some jealous, greedy, unscrupulous people who believe they've figured out how to manipulate this out-of-control legal system's idea of copyrights into big benefits from stockholders. Unfurtunately, any company which buys SCO could very well dig up this nonsense again, for up to and in excess of 100 years. To me, this is sad and sickening, and doesn't make me proud to be an American citizen.
Wow! Posted Nov 15, 2003 7:33 UTC (Sat) by wolfrider (guest, #3105) [Link] > If IBM had known how annoying SCO would be in the press, they'd probably have bought SCO out of their advertizing budget and considered it money well spent.--Why throw good money at Bad A$$H0135?
Wow! Posted Nov 15, 2003 2:34 UTC (Sat) by msmelov (guest, #11243) [Link] As stupid as that soungs, you can see the problem that may occur whenpeople refer to Linux as "GNU/Linux". Though this guy totally seems clueless - it would be hard to run a "GNU/Linux" operating system with a different kernel.
Wow! Posted Nov 15, 2003 3:41 UTC (Sat) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] Let's see....Yet another Operating-system Reconstruction Kit.....from the Free Software Foundation.....
Isn't there a place called New Lennox?
Wow! Posted Nov 17, 2003 22:14 UTC (Mon) by emk (guest, #1128) [Link] it would be hard to run a "GNU/Linux" operating system with a different kernel. Actually, Debian seems to have mastered this trick. There's a bunch of GNU/Whatever versions of Debian which run on alternative non-Linux kernels. Granted, they don't run well, but that's just a simple matter of debugging and debugging and debugging...
SCO Targets Torvalds, Stallman (Forbes) Posted Nov 16, 2003 15:19 UTC (Sun) by hentosh (subscriber, #6115) [Link] In case you are not following GrokLaw. The subpoena for Torvalds was just for documents and not himself. Although, it also doesn't state that he will be served later.Stallman still hasn't received his AFAIK.
|
|||||||||||||