Letters to the editor

Of monkeys and penguins

Dear Editors of Economist:
 
   Your article (author UNKNOWN - how about some attribution for this
article):
 
http://economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=2020889
 
about SCO and attempting to compare it to something as fundamental as
the Scopes monkey trial is about as off base as it could possibly be.
 
   The SCO trial is about one thing and one thing only: money. SCO is
using the PR and buzz they themselves are stiring up by kicking the
hornets nest that is the Open Source movement. They're doing this
purely in order to pump up their stock price, which they are
proceeding to sell as fast as possible. Numerous news and web sites
have pointed this out and highlighted the sales SCO execs and share
holders have been making, but apparently the oldest motive on the
books is too opaque for some magazine called the "Economist".
 
   Everything SCO is doing, from refusing to actually disclose what
code may or may not have infringed, to sending letters to 1500 large
corporate Linux users, to calling the open source movement
"communist", is designed to generate buzz (good or bad) and that
results in increasing stock price. The whole "open source is
communist" line is sold old and defunct now, I'm stunned your editors
let you print it. Don't you know the new bogeyman is called a
"terrorist" now? I'm surprised SCO didn't try and label the open
source movement with that one (they probably did and I just missed it
in the avalance of press releases they send out).
 
   Please, make an attempt to actually do a little research on stories
before you snap off a silly puff piece like this about it. You've
just contributed to the SCO cause: your uncritical piece, attempting
to "glorify" the SCO case, is *exactly* what they want.
 
Pete Flugstad
Iowa City
 

[Editor's note: The Economist, as a matter of policy, does not put bylines on its articles]

Comments (12 posted)