Linux users face licence cash call (BBC News) [LWN.net]

Linux users face licence cash call (BBC News)

Posted Jan 16, 2004 21:49 UTC (Fri) by rheggs (guest, #4737)
Parent article: Linux users face licence cash call (BBC News)

I agree with all the foregoing comments. I have likewise posted polite, constructive feedback. We shall see if the BBC is prepared to update the story. The more POLITE, CONSTRUCTIVE feedback the BBC receives, the more likely this is to happen.

I also dropped a quick email to Bill Thompson, a technology columnist who has a regular spot on the BBC technology pages, and is generally well known for his clear and unbiased reporting on tech issues (from toys to serious stuff like DRM). I hope he feels strongly enough about the situation to write up a proper article on the subject.

The cynic in me asks: is this the real reason that SCO have expanded their, urm, 'marketing': the US media are becoming wise to their rhetoric, so they have to look further afield to get favourable press?

(Log in to post comments)

Linux users face licence cash call (BBC News)

Posted Jan 16, 2004 21:54 UTC (Fri) by Dabuk (guest, #1507) [Link]

Bill Thompson? You mean the guy who wrote this?

I guess he might have changed his views since he wrote that...

Linux users face licence cash call (BBC News)

Posted Jan 16, 2004 22:19 UTC (Fri) by rheggs (guest, #4737) [Link]

Actually, I don't think the article to which you refer is all that bad. His turn of phrase is a bit abrasive here and there, but generally, I think that it is fair. The key points he makes, as far as I can see them are:

1) SCOX have sued IBM, claiming that the latter placed copyrighted material into Linux - but there may be nothing to the claim, and the evidence so far is not impressive.

2) SCOX was a struggling company before this, and since the whol fiaSCO (ahem :) began, senior executives have been selling their shares.

3) UNIX has a long and complicated history.

4) There is nothing inherently implausible about the claim (there really isn't - it's a perfectly reasonable question, to which the perfectly reasonable answer is 'NO'. :)

5) The typical response from Linux users (at the time of writing) was one of dismissal.

I think that this last point is perhaps the most arguable. In my not-so-humble this was indeed a common opinion, last summer; it was certainly mine. 'How dare they make such claims! Ignore them and they will go away.' The attitude has since shifted decisively towards 'We're convinced you're wrong; show us your proofs, and we will demolish them' - a much healthier attitude, I believe.

I disagree with the 5th and 4th paragraph from the end of the article (and the last bit of the 6th paragraph), but on the whole I think that this is a good article, given the facts available at the time. Of course, a great deal has happened since this article was written, almost 5 months ago. I would be very surprised indeed if Mr Thompson would write the same article today.

Linux users face licence cash call (BBC News)

Posted Jan 17, 2004 11:49 UTC (Sat) by rev (guest, #15082) [Link]

"4) There is nothing inherently implausible about the claim (there really isn't - it's a perfectly reasonable question, to which the perfectly reasonable answer is 'NO'. :)"

Well, there might by nothing inherently implausible about SCO's claim that it believes there's infringing code in Linux. There is something inherently implausible with SCO threatening to sue people if they don't pay for using SCO owned code that it didn't want to be in Linux but now doesn't want to be removed, thus wanting it to be in Linux, and for which it has given not a single bit of evidence that it actually exists. I find it deeply disturbing that this doesn't raise an eyebrow with a long list of journalists.