LWN.net News from the source
SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld)
Posted Sep 12, 2003 13:08 UTC (Fri) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link]
What we're trying to say is, No.1, intellectual property is very important in establishing this [Linux] platform and to just take this "don't ask, don't tell" methodology [toward IP], we don't think that works.
Hee hee. That's pretty funny.
Let's look at two things here. One one side, you have a kernel the full source code to which is completely public, the development process of which is completely open, and the history of submissions and who sent in what is completely documented.
On the other side we have a company alleging that some of their code is illigitimately in the aforementioned kernel, but which will not specify exactly which code is the problem, nor will reveal just what they are claiming as their "IP".
So... who is it who's being secretive here? Who is it here who's doing "don't tell"? (They've surely been asked often enough.)
McBride is so full of $#!+ it's a little bit scary to imagine that we all share tremendous common genetic heritage with him.
-Rob
SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld)
Posted Sep 12, 2003 19:25 UTC (Fri) by NickF (guest, #15049) [Link]
"McBride is so full of $#!+ it's a little bit scary to imagine that we all share tremendous common genetic heritage with him."
Not necessarily, could just be a case of convergent evolution. McBride could turn out to be more closely related to the wombat or duck billed platypus even...
SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld)
Posted Sep 12, 2003 19:33 UTC (Fri) by pbk (guest, #14280) [Link]
I don't know, I'm thinking we may look to look outside of Mammal class, like the reptiles, or maybe the Insects.
SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld)
Posted Sep 13, 2003 1:04 UTC (Sat) by freebooter (guest, #11823) [Link]
Well, technically the wombat is a marsupial and the platypus is a monotreme, not sure if they're considered subsets of mammal or not. And, to stay on topic, McBride seems to be highly evolved slime :)
SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld)
Posted Sep 13, 2003 10:54 UTC (Sat) by rjw (guest, #10415) [Link]
Yes, they are both subclasses of mammals.
SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld)
Posted Sep 12, 2003 23:31 UTC (Fri) by russell (guest, #10458) [Link]
Hey !!! They are Australian animals. I ( an Australian ) take offense, that you slander our animals.
SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld)
Posted Sep 12, 2003 13:10 UTC (Fri) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link]
OK, I can't resist.
Clearly, the free model just about killed our company, and I would argue that it's going to kill a lot of other software companies if the GPL [General Public License] is able to gain a foothold and run rampant throughout the industry.
Meanwhile, we can all be assured that no company which adhered to a proprietary software model has ever gone out of business! Right? Right?
What an idiot. The sad thing is that his misinformation keeps being echoed, which just lends it an air of credence.
-Rob
SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld)
Posted Sep 12, 2003 13:21 UTC (Fri) by dvrabel (subscriber, #9500) [Link]
"Clearly, bronze just about killed our flint mining company, and I would argue that it's going to kill a lot of other flint mining companies if bronze is able to gain a foothold and run rampant throughout the industry."
I think Mr McBride hasn't heard of progress.
David
SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld)
Posted Sep 15, 2003 17:18 UTC (Mon) by gleef (guest, #1004) [Link]
The example I prefer to use are the lamplighters. During the 19th century, many cities had key city streets lit by gaslights. These gave light to the streets, which reduced crime and made it more comfortable to walk (or drive a carriage) at night. On the other hand, not only did they occasionally start fires, but they required the city to hire people to turn each of them on at dusk, and extinguish each of them later in the night. These men, called lamplighters, had a solid, steady job for a long time.Starting in the 1880's, cities started to get decent power generators, which allowed them to replace the gaslights with incadescent electric ones. Large segments of city lighting could be handled by one guy flipping a switch at the power plant. Suddenly, the lamplighters were out of jobs.
Early on, many lamplighters were surprised that their career was suddenly gone, but some towns didn't make the switch until the 1920's. In some of these cases the delay was surely due to lamplighters lobbying against electric service, to save their already obsolete jobs.
If the lamplighters succeeded in preventing municipal power, just to save their own jobs, where would we be today?
One sided reporting continues
Posted Sep 12, 2003 13:38 UTC (Fri) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link]
The sad thing is that his misinformation keeps being echoed, which just lends it an air of credence.While rebuttals get much less exposure. Example: Reuters. The web pages of this large and well-regarded news agency (reuters.com) have a useful feature where you enter a stock symbol and you get tables and a graph of the share value, together with recent news abut the company and its press releases.
Try the stockquote for SCOX, and you see only the SCO:s side of the story. No wonder their stock price keeps climbing every time SCO says something, as this is one of the places where investors are very likely to look for company information...
One sided reporting continues
Posted Sep 12, 2003 14:24 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link]
I'm starting to get really disgusted with the way the American press is handling this. I sent feedback to ComputerWorld on the matter this morning.I *still* want to know this: If something stinks about what McBride is doing, and private-enterprise Linux supporters know this, where is the opposing coverage in the financial-oriented press?
Unless something starts changing, I will begin to wonder exactly how fair-weather our friends are.
One sided reporting continues
Posted Sep 12, 2003 14:57 UTC (Fri) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link]
The problem is that the press likes new things. SCO is always changing there story to keep it interesting. The open source community has kept on saying the same thing over and over.IBM: We have a perpetual license.
Linus: SCO is smoking crack.
ESR: UnixWare doesn't even have enterprise features.
If we want to be in the news, then we have to start doing new things every week.
One sided reporting continues
Posted Sep 12, 2003 15:16 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link]
I looked in the "letter from Linus" thread, and found out that people in our sphere may have something big coming up.If it's anything like the speculation, it will definietly be "something different."
One sided reporting continues
Posted Sep 15, 2003 11:18 UTC (Mon) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
From the grin on the face of the Cheshire Cat (ESR), I think it might well be a case of "hello court, look at all this GPL code we found in SCO Unix. Can we have an injunction to stop them shipping Unix, please?".All accompanied by mounds of well researched evidence, affidavits by authors, etc etc etc. Bear in mind that in order to get the judge to issue an injunction, you have to have "a reasonable chance of winning", I think they're looking at making it so watertight that they don't have a hope in hell of losing, and the judge will only need one or two braincells to agree with them :-)
SCO just won't know what hit 'em ...
Cheers,
Wol
One sided reporting continues
Posted Sep 12, 2003 15:57 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link]
I also got a nice response from ComputerWorld right away, from someone who apparently believes SCO are nothing but wind (found postings from her on the SCO discussion forum on ComputerWorld.)It's good to know.
One sided reporting continues
Posted Sep 12, 2003 16:16 UTC (Fri) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link]
>The problem is that the press likes new things. SCO is always changing
One sided reporting continues
Posted Sep 13, 2003 3:07 UTC (Sat) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]
Right!!!, like you can read "Where are the WMDs" in the press every day...thought the FS/OSS has really something new everyday!Just admit that "The Press is Controlled to only pass the political dominant will"...
And it isn't only America, its everywhere....
GOVERNMENTS LIE DELIBERATELY OR BY OMISSION EVERYDAY, AND TRY TO CONTROL PEOPLE BY DESINFORMATION...
This is not a conspiracy theory, its the reality, just admit it...
So no real press coverage for Linux/FS/OSS,..., we all got to live with it.
One sided reporting continues
Posted Sep 12, 2003 17:13 UTC (Fri) by neurocrapper (guest, #14025) [Link]
I'm sick of PR lies trumping the truth.
One sided reporting continues
Posted Sep 12, 2003 17:19 UTC (Fri) by murry (guest, #13033) [Link]
Our community lacks a nexus of strategic influence and that's why one-sided reporting continues to frustrate us. In the specific examples being given, balance can be achieved if another organization issued press releases and media advisories challenging those issued by SCO. If the org had membership including publically traded corporations, it would increase the likelihood of coverage.Then, the challenge would show up at any financial site when someone types in the SCOX symbol. Likewise, the challenge would naturally generate more media coverage of the OSS position.
If the resources could be found to build a nexus of strategic influence, our community could REACT quickly (just as Perens and Raymond have done). It's a job for a quarterback with great contacts and communication skills. Someone extremely fleet on their feet.
But, REACT is the wrong approach. Our community needs to be proactive. We need to mount a sophisticated and unimpeachable outreach campaign to the media, and to actually put our story on the road. There is no substitute for person-person contact. Our long term strategy must be proactive, not reactive. And it should be done face to face with carefully selected media.
Writing to pubs like Computerworld AFTER they've interviewed Darl is fine, but it makes far more sense to talk with them in advance, and to help them ask the right questions before an interview. Performed professionally, CW would most likely also include the other side of the story in their presentation.
A proactive program would arm the media and analyst community with research materials, URL's and most importantly, unimpeachable sources willing to talk on and off the record. I've participated in programs like this for many years -- on both the media and the corporate side -- and can testify to their success.
Assuming we actually approach a trial date for SCO / IBM, you can bet the farm that both sides will field proactive teams to preposition media coverage. We can hope that SCO runs out of $$$ long beforehand. Privately, I've been told this will never get to trial.
Apart from our valid desire to expose SCO's deeply flawed reasoning and maddening actions, what I am advocating makes sense anyway. Even if SCO never happened, the OSS community needs to engage in proactive strategic outreach. You only have to look at the headlines that Redmond is generating (Linux on the Desktop more expensive than Windows; Linux TCO much higher than Windows; Cost to develop Linux applications much higher than Windows).
Which organization is correct for this program? LI sounds right. So does FSF. And OSDL. What do you guys think?
One sided reporting continues
Posted Sep 12, 2003 23:35 UTC (Fri) by dooglio (guest, #2604) [Link]
Which organization is correct for this program? LI sounds right. So does FSF. And OSDL.
Let us pick our battles
Posted Sep 15, 2003 8:11 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]
But, REACT is the wrong approach.On the contrary, it is not our job to mix in these stupid investor games. Since the SCO issue is obviously an investor scam, let us just answer the technical points and ignore the FUD.
I think esr, Bruce Perens and the rest are doing an excellent job here: informing the public, but not going into the dirty game. Linux is not a news generator; and being on the defensive is just the right approach, IMHO. Let another one punch this balloon down.
Couldn'ta happened to nicer people.
Posted Sep 12, 2003 13:44 UTC (Fri) by jmitchel (guest, #11611) [Link]
Clearly, the free model just about killed our company, and I would argue that it's going to kill a lot of other software companies if the GPL [General Public License] is able to gain a foothold and run rampant throughout the industry.It really couldn't have happened to more deserving companies. SCO products suck. They have always sucked. They would not have ceased to suck without free software. As far as I know, SCO's competitors in the unix on x86 space suck, they always sucked, they would not have ceased to suck without free software.
According to an old copy of the jargon file (circa 1993) SCO's own engineers dubbed their CDE port Open Deathtrap. Inspires confidence, doesn't it?
The problem isn't the GPL. Linux would have beaten SCO (slower, but as surely) if it cost $699 and didn't come with source. If Linux hadn't been developed, *BSD would have beaten SCO with its BSD (and some days rabidly anti-GPL) licensed code. *BSD would have beaten SCO even if it had cost $699 and didn't come with source.
Free software has affected everybody, but the companies that give reasonable value-add are still doing fine. Cisco hasn't gone under because people were building cheap PCs to do routing. Sun and HP haven't gone under because people decided they could run Payroll on a cheap PC with Linux and MySQL. And if you need a mainframe, you need a mainframe, you buy IBM and they'll be happy to ship it with Linux if that floats your boat.
Couldn'ta happened to nicer people.
Posted Sep 12, 2003 16:49 UTC (Fri) by wweber (guest, #11678) [Link]
It really couldn't have happened to more deserving companies. SCO products suck. They have always sucked. They would not have ceased to suck without free software. As far as I know, SCO's competitors in the unix on x86 space suck, they always sucked, they would not have ceased to suck without free software.Your word choice is "lacking even in verbal vigor, save in the ears of those to whom only the squalid sounds strong". Rebuttals of this kind are not helping dispel the impression of open-source software users and developers that Rob Enderle's articles gave months ago. In any way could you replace the raw scorn with some information?
Couldn'ta happened to nicer people.
Posted Sep 12, 2003 17:31 UTC (Fri) by gsc (guest, #6830) [Link]
You may not have appreciated the delivery, but the message is 100% spot on target. I for one, appreciate straight talk that communicates effectively and economically. I find no fault w/the original comment in any way. It must be difficult to be so delicate in such a vulgar time.
Couldn'ta happened to nicer people.
Posted Sep 12, 2003 19:39 UTC (Fri) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link]
Absolutely. The comment was in fact right on target, but the quote from Tolkien brought up a most appropriate image in my mind: Darl McB as Grishnakh. :-) Now that works nicely.
Couldn'ta happened to nicer people.
Posted Sep 13, 2003 2:25 UTC (Sat) by wweber (guest, #11678) [Link]
Actually, Saruman and Wormtongue come to mind when one considers the "way with words" that the SCO execs McBride and Sonntag have. Anyway, I would still find some description of the inferiority of the SCO products of interest, occasionally.
SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld)
Posted Sep 12, 2003 16:26 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (guest, #4458) [Link]
The whole SCO bunch (before Caldera and then after) were doing a fine job at killing SCO Unix from way before any "open source threats". OTOH, there are others thriving on OSS right now.The problem is that the ones on the loosing side of the current fight are the ones that have the money and the power to make OSS' life extremely miserable. OSS has very little to oppose them in their own terms. It will be some form of guerilla warfare... and this has worked in the "real world" only against some kind of colonial power, who eventually got fed up, packed, and left (happened in the US, in the spanish colonies in south america, India, Afganistan with the USSR, Vietnam, ...). Where it was tried against local governments (with no other place to go), it usually failed miserably. Unless said local government was so inept and corrupt as to be universally hated (as it was in Cuba before Castro).
In our case, the MSFTs and their ilk do very well know just how far they can turn the screw so as to get their constituencies upset, but not too angry at them. SCO is overdoing it, but only as a desperate last measure. Or perhaps their C?Os are doing it for personal short-range gain, might as well get some $$$ out of the sinking ship as it is going down anyway.
SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld)
Posted Sep 12, 2003 13:28 UTC (Fri) by kertvaros (guest, #15040) [Link]
I entirely disagree with Mr.McBride.
SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld)
Posted Sep 12, 2003 14:09 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link]
Everyone keeps talking here about how little coverage rebuttals are getting, yet none of you who are in the commercial Linux business frame seem to have any idea how to correct that.If you believe the issue is money, then why don't you go to IBM or Red Hat and get some?
Point: I've been using Linux with little or no friction since 1994, but for non-commercial purposes, on my own personal computer. None of this crap was going on, to any notable degree, until I started reading that financial institutions were developing an interest in Linux.
For all the years I was using it, I have been advocating for it in my own sphere of interest. Now, companies are suing each other over it, people are complaining that the Linux side of the story isn't getting enough coverage, and no one with *money to gain* by helping out is responding, as far as I can see, in a way that sets the record straight, in public.
What does that mean?
SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld)
Posted Sep 13, 2003 3:36 UTC (Sat) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]
You simple cant.Linux/OSS due to his "disrupting" of tradicional software business will be for a the foreseeable future, a target for the meritless financial street "Wise Guys" like SCO and McBride, and ignored by the press controled by the bigger Bosses and Ma$ters,..., way up to its government puppets,..., anywhere!
It means that when IBM hit them, they will *king*hit* them
Posted Sep 16, 2003 10:27 UTC (Tue) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link]
IBM subpoenaed not The SCO Group, but The Canopy Group, controllers of The SCO Group. Think about that for a minute.Now reflect on how obviously, theatrically childish D'ohl's reactions have been so far. Imagine that he's seen the subpoena and panicked, and shredded some stuff.
Now imagine that IBM have legitimate copies of that stuff.
Now imagine D'ohl in a Federal Pen, having (as someone else so quaintly put it) changed his name to Trixiebell in order to feel better about his relationship with his neighbours.
Now imagine that this is only one potential avenue of attack, and IBM is covering them all.
I'd be surprised if IBM wanted to not so much defeat the lawsuit as make it absolutely clear to anyone else who wants to try a similar stunt that it would be a very, very bad idea. In legal terms, I think they want to eradicate the whole family to three generations out, their staff, pets, anyone who owes them money or to whom they owe money, burn their belongings, turn any property they own into flat desolate gravel, well... you get the idea.
SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld)
Posted Sep 12, 2003 14:30 UTC (Fri) by thompsot (guest, #12368) [Link]
Every post so far has been right on the money. Darl obviously doesn't possess such qualities as honesty and integrity, so it stands to reason that his deranged blatherings aren't entirely because he's delusional and arrogant (a dangerous combination), but also because he's working the system. He knows that anyone who says and does outlandish things will be focused on by the media, and if he simply pumps enough BS through the pipeline there will be a section of people who will believe and act on it, no matter how absurd. Microsoft's marketing team has been doing this for years (remember their "The Way Out" marketing scheme? You were almost embarrassed for them at their enthusiastic display of ignorance, but you knew that their message would get to some people anyway).People like Darl just need to be ignored, but the media won't ignore anything that might get an audience. I predict that Darl and his goons will fade away slowly, with every lie and dumb statement coming back on them and hurting their case. Unscrupulous people who yell accusations loud enough will always get heard at first, but they are always found out eventually and go the way of the Dodo bird. The "15-year knockdown, drag-out type of fight" will basically be Darl and company getting knocked down and dragged out, but it won't take 15 years.
And ccchips has the right idea. If companies are going to pour millions of dollars into Linux development, they should be willing to counter some of the FUD that threatens their potential customer bases.
Hypocrisy
Posted Sep 12, 2003 14:40 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link]
We believe we've got the moral high ground in this case, so that's what propels you forward.I'll be darled if this isn't the schoolbook example of hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy
Posted Sep 12, 2003 14:48 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link]
Hypocrisy is the American way, isn't it?What other reason could there be for all this slanted coverage?
Hypocrisy
Posted Sep 12, 2003 15:14 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link]
Hypocrisy is a European feature in our Democracy 0.02 release, which was shipped overseas with all rights reserved. We might have to sue.
Hypocrisy
Posted Sep 12, 2003 19:38 UTC (Fri) by MacGuyver (guest, #15050) [Link]
Hypocrisy is not a feature, but merely a bug in the GOP-subroutine of the
Hypocrisy
Posted Sep 12, 2003 23:49 UTC (Fri) by dooglio (guest, #2604) [Link]
I downloaded the latest patch to Democracy 0.2.0-911, but when I tried to install the
Hypocrisy
Posted Sep 12, 2003 23:59 UTC (Fri) by dooglio (guest, #2604) [Link]
Sorry about the jagged presentation in the above comment. I just discovered the HTML option on the Reply page. :-)
I downloaded the latest patch to Democracy 0.2.0-911, but when I tried to install the package, i got a dependancy conflict with bill-of-rights-0.1.0. It seems they are incompatible. Something about unresolved symbols in these new libraries called libpatriot.so.0, libcarnivore.so.0 and libdmca.so.0. Any suggestions?
Hypocrisy
Posted Sep 13, 2003 6:01 UTC (Sat) by frazier (guest, #3060) [Link]
Hypocrisy is not a feature, but merely a bug in the GOP-subroutine of the U.S.-administration-module of Democracy 0.02.You realize that the DMCA and Sonny Bono act passed through both a Republican congress and a Democratic President, right?!
Before people of whatever major political party affiliation start taking the high road I suggest they look back in history circa-1998 and decide whether they have the right to be so snotty and arrogant.
Maybe you're tied to the Green party or something, but if your a Democrat rest assured you're part of a dirty system too. Not to say that the Patriot act isn't wrong, but I can't play a DVD on my laptop under RH9, which is painfully and obviously wrong (okay, I could add packages but they should logically be part of a standard install). I own the DVD. I own the computer. WTF?
SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld)
Posted Sep 12, 2003 15:01 UTC (Fri) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link]
Response to McBride:
Best Defence is Attack : Of course Rebuttals and denials get less coverage
Posted Sep 12, 2003 15:07 UTC (Fri) by RobDavies (guest, #9930) [Link]
I said this in yesterday's thread... it's time to put SCO on backfoot and
Best Defence is Attack : Of course Rebuttals and denials get less coverage
Posted Sep 12, 2003 16:41 UTC (Fri) by jhardin@impsec.org (guest, #15045) [Link]
We should challenge them to run ESR's comparator, on their source base, and let it be subject to scrutiny for IP violations.I would wager that this is exactly what is happening, outside of SCO's control. ESR is very likely working with a SYSV licensee (IBM perhaps) who is running the shredder on their SCO code base so that a comparison can be made.
Best Defence is Attack : Of course Rebuttals and denials get less coverage
Posted Sep 12, 2003 17:36 UTC (Fri) by djabsolut (guest, #12799) [Link]
Let's up the ante: ESR has been making noises that Something Big (tm) is going be dropped on SCO - my bet is that he (or they, whoever that might be) has found some serious overlaps with BSD source, with the attributions to BSD-folks removed. Other theories ?
Best Defence is Attack : Of course Rebuttals and denials get less coverage
Posted Sep 12, 2003 18:11 UTC (Fri) by jhardin@impsec.org (guest, #15045) [Link]
That plus "borrowed" Linux code wouldn't be at all surprising.
SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld)
Posted Sep 12, 2003 15:25 UTC (Fri) by IkeTo (subscriber, #2122) [Link]
> Clearly, the free model just about killed our company, and IIf the whole world, or half of the whole world, gets together and kill your business, I think it's pretty clear what it means. I think it is time for every user to review the GNU manifesto to understand why the GNU project even gets started, what it is targetted at, and why one would support it. You will understand that the "killing" is on purpose, and that it *does* tries to force all businesses to abandon their business models that base their revenue from dividing people into those who has paid the license fee and those who hasn't, and forbid the former type from helping the latter. It also tells exactly why it is a bad idea.
SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld)
Posted Sep 12, 2003 15:43 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link]
Mmmh... I'm not exactly sure what you mean.I'm quite convinced that all Mr McBride is doing is reaching out to those who are susceptible to sentiments along the lines of the "GPL is like cancer" nonsense. And his notion of "free" is quite wrong in this context, like most of his remarks meant to mock, provoke, or mislead.
This IMHO is the most difficult aspect of this whole "discussion" (if you can call it that): it's just too much lies, half-truths, slander and downright nonsense, there's no point in taking it seriously. But obviously the general public will be influenced by it. Maybe it's time to take on SCO on a slightly higher level: instead of merely insisting they show us the code -- sticking to the facts --, we hit them hard in the credibility ballpark.
Suggestions?
SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld)
Posted Sep 12, 2003 16:44 UTC (Fri) by jhardin@impsec.org (guest, #15045) [Link]
Suggestions?Short SCOX and wait for ESR to drop The Bomb on them.
If SCOX was any more shorted it would glow and melt
Posted Sep 16, 2003 10:30 UTC (Tue) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link]
There ain't no shares available for the purpose.
SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld)
Posted Sep 12, 2003 15:30 UTC (Fri) by sethg (guest, #14970) [Link]
The simple thing we would like to see going forward is that there's a business model around Linux that allows companies like ours to be able to get compensation when their IP is showing up inside Linux.Translation: "Now that Linux is so popular and our own products are tanking, we're looking for a way to extract as much rent as possible from every Linux distributor that might be unwittingly distributing our intellectual property."
SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld)
Posted Sep 12, 2003 15:35 UTC (Fri) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link]
"and we're able to get recognition for our IP"
Well we can't recognition your IP unless you point specifically to it.
"and to just take this "don't ask, don't tell" methodology [toward IP], we don't think that works"
Well we're asking for you to point specifically to your IP and tell us why you consider this your IP but your not telling. So how is this really suppose to work.
"allows companies like ours to be able to get compensation when their IP is showing up inside Linux"
Well there's the rub. We don't want your IP unless you share it under the terms of the GPL.
"that there would be a process with Linux to ensure that the [code] that is going in there is valued and IP-protected"
There already. It's called Copyright and the GPL.
question for McBride
Posted Sep 12, 2003 16:14 UTC (Fri) by rcbixler (guest, #11917) [Link]
A simple question to ask McBride:
SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld)
Posted Sep 12, 2003 16:28 UTC (Fri) by cpm (guest, #3554) [Link]
My favorite part is the sidebar to the right, about "Top Stories"SCO CEO fires off letter to open-source community
Forrester: Linux development can be more costly than using Microsoft software
and that's it!
That pretty much sums up where ComputerWorld is comming from.
Now, they have Linus's rebuttal to SCO, but that isn't "Linux News"
and they have the Raymond/Perens letter, but that isn't "Linux News"
and of course there are lots of more recent dissections of the
Forrester report, but that isn't Linux News either.
If it isn't linux bashing, it isn't news.
SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld)
Posted Sep 12, 2003 16:50 UTC (Fri) by jhardin@impsec.org (guest, #15045) [Link]
<blockqoute><i>Now, they have Linus's rebuttal to SCO, but that isn't "Linux News"So? Do what I did. Write the ComputerWorld editor and the article's author a <i><b>polite</b></i> email asking why their coverage appears so biased and unbalanced.
SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld)
Posted Sep 12, 2003 17:05 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link]
Yes...that's exactly what I did also (see other posts from me.)Computerworld is a responsible and respectable publication, so politeness is the best approach.
We can let it slip a bit here, because most people who come here are pretty much "in the scene,) or bit-players like myself, but considering the kind, respectful response I got from them, I can't help but emphasize politeness.
Darn...I wish I didn't have so many bills--I'd drop $60 on the LWN site just to be grateful.
SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld)
Posted Sep 12, 2003 17:11 UTC (Fri) by jhardin@impsec.org (guest, #15045) [Link]
oops. premature clickage. why can't we edit posted comments? anyway...Now, they have Linus's rebuttal to SCO, but that isn't "Linux News" and they have the Raymond/Perens letter, but that isn't "Linux News" and of course there are lots of more recent dissections of the Forrester report, but that isn't Linux News either.So? Do what I did. Write the ComputerWorld editor and the article's author a polite email asking why their coverage appears so biased and unbalanced. Ask when they are going to publish an interview with ESR and BP.
SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld)
Posted Sep 13, 2003 4:00 UTC (Sat) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]
Geee!... i just lost count on how many of those i did, specialy outside of the IT dedicated press...Linux/OSS got so big without any help from the press, i guess it can get much bigger the same way!
SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld)
Posted Sep 12, 2003 18:55 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link]
Remember. SCO is an American corporation that's got problems working with the people they originally chose to work woth. Americans like to root for underdogs. The SCO management is doing its best to make themselves look like they've been victimized (they're the underdogs.)In fact, I believe they are *paying* to be the underdogs.
SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld)
Posted Sep 12, 2003 17:51 UTC (Fri) by neoprene (guest, #8520) [Link]
IBM has the ancient Sys-V source code ?How about these guys making "diff" on the Linux kernel and *BSD?
Why wait for SCOX to spill the beans?
Re: Hypocrisy ?
Posted Sep 12, 2003 19:41 UTC (Fri) by patriot (guest, #14594) [Link]
In Utah, Leavitt came under criticism for opening the state's wildlands to polluting industries and opening millions of acres of wilderness to roadbuilding and development. He also backed a massive highway project that would have destroyed wetlands and fertile farmlands along the Great Salt Lake.President Bush yesterday nominated Utah governor Michael Leavitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency replacing Christie Todd Whitman who resigned in May.
Philip E. Clapp, head of the National Environmental Trust, said, "I can't think of too many governors more hostile to government regulations than Mike Leavitt." We'll have more on this later in the show.
http://www.thetruthseekers.com/nature/article_570.shtml
Governor Mike Leavitts environmental track record, which includes working behind closed doors with Interior Secretary Gale Norton to open up Utahs wildlands to polluting industries, suggests that he will be a good fit for the Bush administration but a disappointing choice for Americans concerned with environmental protection.
http://www.thetruthseekers.com/nature/printer_570.shtml
Dianne Nielson, the director of Utah's Department of Environmental Quality, said the state's effort was key to the dramatic reduction in chlorine emissions. Environmentalists say they pushed the state to act. Legge said the company itself was the major driver, but he credited the Leavitt administration's business-friendly approach with helping his company do the right thing.
"An effort like that, as opposed to one that is adversarial, at the end of the day is more advantageous," Legge said. "During the governor's tenure, they've managed to have us reduce our air emissions by 95 percent and at the same time retain something on the order of 400 jobs."
However, the same approach didn't work on a separate pollution issue involving the company. The state negotiated with U.S. Magnesium for years to change its treatment of hazardous wastes without success; finally the EPA sued the company, seeking $902 million in fines. A similar example arose at a municipal trash-to-energy plant in Layton. State officials negotiated for six years without success to get the plant to follow trash-burning regulations. Then the state imposed fines totaling $38,000, but they never were paid; eventually the state waived them. The EPA told the state the fines were inadequate and filed charges of violations against the plant in 2000; those charges still are being contested.
Federal EPA records show that Utah inspects its major polluters far more often than the national average. But when it finds a problem, it doesn't do anything about it, Groenewold and other activists contend.
http://www.thatsracin.com/mld/krwashington/2003/08/15/news/nation/6543163.htm
Re: Interior Secretary
Posted Sep 12, 2003 21:19 UTC (Fri) by sreed (guest, #4006) [Link]
So, are you saying that we should instead send his fellow UtahanBut, what a hoot, that would be.
Darl McBride to the Chinese:
"You are breathing our air over there in China. And Red Flag Linux is
derived from Sys V. You owe us all your money."
Nuclear winter and Third World War time, no?
SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld)
Posted Sep 12, 2003 20:01 UTC (Fri) by icc (guest, #9514) [Link]
What is your best possible scenario to come out of the letter? It would be to have our intellectual property [IP] that we feel has been misappropriated into Linux getting valued, and we're then able to move forward.
SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld)
Posted Sep 13, 2003 23:01 UTC (Sat) by mormop (guest, #13775) [Link]
"in this case we have one set of forces here that are pro-SCO, and I've characterized
SCO's McBride on his open letter to the Linux community (ComputerWorld)
Posted Sep 15, 2003 14:33 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
It's the old trick known on the Usenet as `the lurkers support me in e-mail'.See Jo Walton's filk on the subject at <http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk/poetry/interstichia/lurkers.htm>.
When this all ends, where will D'ohl be imprisoned?
Posted Sep 16, 2003 10:37 UTC (Tue) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link]
c) everyone thinks I'm barking mad, on a one way trip to a prison cell and an appointment with Big Al and his magic tub of vaseline.
Now, if someone can be on hand when D'ohl gets incarcerated - with a suitably labelled truck - so that the news cameras get a shot of D'ohl being led into prison past a huge sign saying Vaseline...?
Olive branch
Posted Sep 16, 2003 7:53 UTC (Tue) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
I don't know if it's just me, but I reckon Darl should take his issue up on LKML. He can find all kernel maintainers there and ask them to remove whatever code is his. No?
Copyright © 2003, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds