|
|
| Coordinated FUD |
 |
|
Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 09:36 AM EDT
|
There is an offensive article on UPI today, "The Bottom Line:
Software and Copyright" by Gregory Fossedal. [Update: It's now here, behind a paywall.] It purports to be about
how smart you'd be to invest in Linux instead of proprietary software companies,
but it manages to include so much pure FUD, including listing SCO as a
Linux company in which you should invest, as well as several plugs for
the brilliant Bill Gates, that I thought it was worthwhile to do a
little checking on the author and the organizations to which he
belongs. First, the FUD.
Here are some examples from the article: Smart investors are
putting their shorts on the computer software industry, with a special
emphasis on the pitiful, helpless giants such as Sun Microsystems,
Oracle, and even Microsoft. Awash with cash and wishy-washy bureaucracy
that would have scandalized their founders 25 years ago, these are the
giants that have the farthest to fall -- and will have the most
difficult time dealing not only with emerging market piracy, but the
more subtle assault of "open source" software termites operating in the
U.S. and Western Europe. Straightforward piracy is an issue
solved for the software industry 25 years ago by a brilliant young
executive named Bill Gates, who realized that only by basing software on
undisclosed "source code" could the industry ever really thrive. Today,
however, the quasi-monopoly enjoyed (in various sectors) by Microsoft,
Oracle, and Sun is highly vulnerable to outright theft by such nations
as Brazil, China, and Russia -- to name just three. Quasi-monopoly? Why so
modest? I believe Microsoft has been officially declared a monopoly. And is it "theft" to avoid a monopoly? Is he really saying that it is a desirable thing to
protect monopolies? All right. Maybe he isn't a deep thinker. He goes on to describe open source, and of course, he gets it wrong,
whether through cluelessness or cunning: Open
source can be a misnomer, but in general, open source is a product of
thousands of programmers who agree to share their work in developing a
joint product with revealed code -- hence, "open source." There are now
many programs developed in this way, such as the operating system Linux,
which might better be called "mixed source" or "shared proprietary source" -- because under the licensing arrangements for using Linux,
programmers who improve or make changes to the system must agree that
their innovations become the property of the system. That is
flat wrong. Their "property" remains their own. Linux is a kernel, not an operating system. Shared proprietary source? This is his definition of open source? I smell a possibility that he's not loaded with tech smarts and didn't bother to do much research either. He goes on to reveal the India/China plot, using words that make it sound like a missile attack or something equally sinister: According to a reliable U.S. official
familiar with Chinese industrial espionage efforts, the use of Linux
products by those governments is only the beginning. "The Chinese and
the Indians both plan to become a hub for developing countries eager to
escape from U.S. software 'hegemony,' if you will," the source said.
Today, the People's Bank of China. Tomorrow, a billion desktops in
India, another billion in China, and another quarter of a billion in
Brazil. What a dastardly plot. I don't think you need to be a spy, or an analyst for the CIA or anything like that, to understand the appeal open source/free software has anywhere money is tight, including in US companies. Of course, he uses the Marxist
word in passing, in addition to the pejorative termite metaphor: Sun and
Oracle have even tried to sidle up to the Linux and open-source
movement. In effect, they have invited the termites into their house,
hoping that after a little munching a symbiotic relationship can be
worked out. "Let them eat Microsoft," is the motto, and, to be sure,
there is a special hatred reserved only for Bill Gates among the
community of programmers who couldn't get hired, or compete, with the
Redmond wunderkind over several generations of products. . . . Couldn't get hired or compete with Microsoft? Is he kidding? It's Microsoft's terror at Linux's success against it that funds all the FUD. He continues with the insults:
The little competitors, indeed, are already fighting amongst
themselves, much as some types of insects and carnivorous fish eat
themselves. Heck, they're already suing each other. In this too, the
software industry takes much hope, much as the recording industry
delighted in its ability to crush this music-sharing program, or that
overseas piracy operation. Pirates, one can kill -- but piracy,
especially once it is welcomed into the intellectual community, just
changes its address. And termites, unless completely exterminated, just
keep munching. He apparently feels the proprietary companies are too sleepy to notice the need to exterminate all the termites, so he then recommends that you sell proprietary
software makers' shares and buy the following, and I hope you are sitting down
so you don't faint dead away at his brilliance: On the buy side,
there are dozens of feisty young companies -- Red Hat, Sco Group, and VA
Software -- that are already taking advantage of the new global
paradigm. Huh? Didn't he get the memo? SCO says it doesn't sell
Linux any more. Ah, who cares with FUD? He got to tell you to buy feisty SCO's stock. I wonder if the SEC would care that people buying stock on his recommendation would be buying stock thinking it was Linux and represented the future, according to this article's analysis, whereas in reality it is a UNIX company's stock, which most analysts say is a shrinking market?
Naturally, I was curious as to who this gentleman might be. I had my suspicions that I might find a Microsoft or a SCO connection.
His bio says this: Gregory Fossedal is chairman of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, a research foundation in Washington, D.C., and has served in this capacity since 1985. He is also the president and chief investment officer of the Democratic Century Fund, established in 1998. The Alexis de Tocqueville Institution... that seemed to ring a bell. So I head on over to their home page and lo and behold, this is the same organization that put out a paper last year attacking Open Source.
Here's a snip from an article
at the time, that suggested that their paper was funded by Microsoft:
Is Microsoft behind it?A libertarian organisation which lists Microsoft as a donor has kicked off a campaign against open source software, and recommended that government and federal institutions keep to proprietary systems. The Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, which claims to represent "civil liberty, political equality and economic freedom and opportunity", has posted a document on its website which bashes open source. . . The 33-page paper, entitled "Opening the Open Source
debate", argues that open source software is more likely to be compromised by terrorists than proprietary software. During a blistering attack, not just on open source but on the General Public Licence (GPL), the report states: "A federal agency's decision to use GPL open source from the public domain must accompany the assumption that potential attackers either already have, or could easily acquire, a
duplicate copy of the same exact source code." . . There is speculation in the open source
community that the report is a Microsoft-backed attempt to scare governments away from the increasing interest in open source
software. More coverage of
the report pointed out that while it claimed that if the FAA used GPL
software they'd have to reveal their source code to hackers, implying
this would put planes at risk, that wasn't actually the case, since
the GPL doesn't require you to reveal any modifications you make to the
source code unless you distribute software, which the FAA doesn't. And, this article added: Indeed, two recent reports by the Mitre Corp. argue that open-source software provides agencies
significant security and cost advantages over commercial software.
In short, the report was laughed at from here to eternity. I used
to have a brother-in-law who was wealthy. I never much liked the
guy, but I did find him intriguing, because with all his money, he was always unhappy. I remember one conversation in which he was complaining about a company he had hired to paint his apartment. His whining was that even with all his money he couldn't find a decent painter. Such a problem as this seemed, in the grand scheme, minor to me, but he went on for hours about how no one had any pride in their work any more, and no matter how much money you
had, you couldn't buy good workmanship. I thought about my ex-brother-in-law when I read Mr. Fossedal's silly and error-riddled prose. Can't the richest man in the world get more skillful FUDsters than this? Not that I'm complaining.
It all brought back to mind Caldera's Statement of Facts in its legal battle against
Microsoft. This is a fascinating document, because it lists all the
anticompetitive moves MS made against Caldera's DR DOS software, according to Caldera,
including how MS used FUD to destroy its competition. If you were wondering why the SCO
story keeps going on and on, consider what happened behind the scenes in the world of PR in
the Caldera/MS battle. According to the Statement, MS used FUD to deliberately cause the public to think that DR
DOS, Caldera's competing product to MS' DOS, had "compatibility
problems" running on Windows when it really didn't and in fact was a
superior product. The FUD worked -- DR DOS failed as a product, hence the lawsuit. Here is how they got the press to cooperate with their FUD
agenda: 48. . . .As Microsoft's own personnel concede, the
purpose of a FUD campaign is to raise an artificial barrier to entry by
a competitor, by introducing and maintaining inertia in the decision-making process. . . 123. On October 15, 1990, Microsoft's outside public relations firm, Waggener Edstrom, had
advised: "Over the next couple of months, Kathryn and I are going to be in touch with a lot of editors regarding MS-DOS 5.0. We'll
basically be covering all the key editors except for the weeklies and we'll be talking to them about other things. We recommend that we
*informally* plant the bug of FUD in their ears. 'Have you heard about
problems with DR DOS?' 'That security feature is a neat idea and, gosh,such a feature would be great, but it's just too easily circumvented.' 'Gee, it's unfortunate that DR DOS can't be loaded high all the time. MS-DOS 5.0 can.' We'll do this very tactfully. *If Digital Research came
to Microsoft for help making DR DOS work with Windows, would Microsoft
help them? Maybe not?". . . 125. In
July 1991, Pineda circulated a separate report devoted to his "MS-DOS 5
vs. DR DOS 5 Comparison," which also contained specific speaking points
on purported flaws in DR DOS 5.0. Exhibit 141. This summary, drawn as it
was from earlier "bug sheets," contained the same misleading
information. . . . Moreover, MS-DOS suffered many of the same -- or worse -- problems. . . . 127. Yet when Novell
announced in July 1991 its intended merger with DRI, the NSTL report
leaped to the fore of Microsoft's FUD campaign. On July 22, 1991, Brad
Silverberg outlined the plan to fellow executives: "DR-DOS has lots of
compatibility problems. We commissioned NSTL not long ago to run tests
and they found many problems with DR-DOS . . .We are engaged in a FUD
campaign to let the press know about some of the bugs. We'll provide
info a few bugs at a time to stretch it out.". . . 128. Silverberg testified this drip-feed technique was designed "[f]or maximal effect . . . to arm the press with factual
information about the shortcomings, incompatibilities and bugs that DR
DOS possessed.". . . As Brad Chase stated by e-mail, the purpose of a "slow leak" program was "to short circuit Novell DOS before it gets off the ground," and to "make it hard for customers or
oems (ibm???) to consider dr. dos seriously." So, that's how it's done. So, there's good reason
not to be discouraged by the incessant drip of the FUD machine. Just
chronicle it, drip by drip. Save the evidence. I don't know if this article is a direct result of such a FUD effort, although if you held a gun to my head and forced me to tell you what I think I'd say I think it is, but I do know that if I were Red Hat or IBM, I'd probably want to depose Mr. Fossedal and find out. He did get one thing right: GNU/Linux is the future.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 10:41 AM EDT |
This author isn't writing FUD, he's just an idiot. He's the internet
equilivant of the crazy old guy telling you that <insert-hopeless-
outdated-jobs-here> is the wave of the future. Nothing to see here. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 10:53 AM EDT |
Gregory Fossedal is chairman of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, a
research foundation in Washington, D.C., and has served in this capacity since
1985.
http://www.adti.net/foss_bio.html
More on AdeTI and Microsoft later.
Regards,
Jim[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Thomas Downing on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 11:20 AM EDT |
In my work in independent radio, I am exposed to some amazingly irresponsible,
out-of-touch and mind-bogglingly ridiculous stories.
Even so, this one goes in the Hall of Fame...
---
Thomas Downing
Principal Member Technical Staff
IPC Information Systems, Inc.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: shaun on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 11:31 AM EDT |
I was talking to a gal last night who didn't understand what Linux was and what
SCO was trying to do. First I explained the concept of Open Source to her and
when she realized the idea she made a pretty concise statement "They users
are also the developers who share their work with all the other users and
developers as well."
Not a bad summary.
--Shaun
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nick on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 11:35 AM EDT |
1. You refer to DR DOS as DR DOSS. Too much FOSS on your mind? :)
2. When you talk about his reference to China, India, and Russia you say,
" And is it "theft" to avoid a monopoly?" I don't
think he is referring to
the recent efforts of China to move to open source, but rather to refer to
their long-standing software knockoff efforts. Being able to buy
Windows for a buck or two on the street stalls, that sort of thing. In that
case, it actually is theft of a sorts and not referring to Linux at all.
Again, I'm not sure what is in his mind when he said that, so I could be
more generous than need be. Just trying to be careful.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ruidh on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 11:53 AM EDT |
Once a highly respected news organization, United Press International is now an
outlet for Sun Young Moon's Unification Church like the Moonie owned Washington
Times. At one time, the reporter for UPI always asked the first question at
Presidential press conferences. This reported was Helen THomas for many years.
But after their collapse as a serious news organization, that honor followed
Helen Thomas to her current position at Hearst newspapers.
Nothing written in UPI should be taken seriously unless confirmed by a reputable
news outlet.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 12:21 PM EDT |
Kn@?0 ategic and tactical plane this is the most incite advanced
article an a definite positive credit to the author on his over sight of
the realities of the current market in intellectual property.
On a operation plain [read exact details] the author makes a number
of very fundamental and out stupid vocabulary mistakes. BUT! These
are irrelevant to the Strategic and Tactical insight. ]To get real incite
these digressions should be mentally corrected by people who have
the more detail knowledge of specific events and meaning of specific
words.]
Details are not what this article is about nor is it what this author is
about.
When one writes especially short articles one has to take into
consideration to whom one is writing.
A article directed to Stock Analysis ts will not contain the same
information as one directed to Computer Techies.
This author is writing to people who have mega bucks, who would
like to continue to have mega bucks, and preference able would like
their mega bucks to grow into super [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Alex on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 01:34 PM EDT |
The question I would have is whether MS is currently funding the Alexis de
Tocqueville Institution. There's a "we could go either way on this"
kind of quality about the paper which makes me think someone is angling for
another check. Maybe some contractual period has passed and either Fossedal or
the Tocqueville Institution as a whole now has liberty to speak out on the
subject in whatever manner they'd prefer and they're looking for more business
on the Open Source front.
The other possibility is that someone other than MS is looking for some
direction on how to invest in the technology market, in which case Fossedal is
trying to give some good advice without pissing of the suits at MS.
I just surfed over to the Toqueville home page and found that the piece PJ
posted isn't listed in either their
"Technology" or "Intellectual Property" sections, so
there's some doubt as to whether the essay is an official Toqueville document.
On the other hand, their frong page contains this illuminating paragraph in
which we learn that Toqueville and Fossedal do release stuff through UPI.
"More on winning the peace: Tocqueville Senior Fellow Gregory Fossedal
discusses who should get the oil... the United Nations? Exxon? the French?
Fossedal's answer: give it to the Iraqis. To read about his oil-to-the-people
proposal, discussed on the BBC, click here, and from United Press International,
click here. While we're at it, Fossedal says, give the Iraqis a
few ballots as well. For a quick sketch of how to make Iraq the Switzerland of
the Middle East, click here.."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: J.F. on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 01:54 PM EDT |
...there is a special hatred reserved only for Bill Gates among the
community of programmers who couldn't get hired, or compete, with the Redmond
wunderkind over several generations of
products.
Bleaaaarrrrggggg!
Sorry. And that was such a
tasty breakfast too! P.J., you should know better than to post these things so
soon after breakfast!
I think it has more to do with the people he
stepped on or kicked out of the way or stabbed in the back to get his empire.
What hasn't Billy-boy done to make an extra billion or two?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Alex on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 02:19 PM EDT |
I've been thinking about this ever since my last post, and I've come to the
conclusion that this article is a big win for the FOSS movement. The analysis
above which states, "On a operation plain [read exact details] the author
makes a number of very fundamental and out stupid vocabulary mistakes. BUT!
These are irrelevant to the Strategic and Tactical insight." is certainly
ungrammatical, but it is completely correct.
Everyone is certainly right that Mr. Fossedal got all the details wrong, and
it's very clear that he's clueless about the philosophy of free software. In
addition, his use of language is, as PJ correctly noted, offensive. But I would
go a step further. It is the language of someone who is in the middle of
changing his mind, something like an ex-Klansman telling us, "I believe
all them little pickananny chillun can go to college and become useful members
of society." The ex-Klansman is still using old and offensive words, but
he's using them to describe ideas which are new and very liberal - at least to
him.
For all his lack of understanding of the details, Fossedals's map is, in the
general sense, pretty good. He does understand that free software offers better
value. He does understand that MS and especially Sun are clueless, (though I'm
not sure about his conclusions regarding Oracle) and that the open source
software companies have good long-term prospects. He even gets the whole issue
of service, and if he's unkind to Open Source, he's even nastier to the big
software companies. Consider these quotes:
"The software giants already conceded their products have no advantages
over open source products in terms of security and reliability. They hope to
maintain sales based on superior service and customer service, but then again,
none of the companies mentioned have a reputation for much other than arrogance
when it comes to dealing with customers."
or
"In any case, none of the companies seems interested -- or even awake.
Like IBM 25 years ago, they seem not even to be fully aware of the
threat."
or
"Sun and Oracle remain good shorts, as they have for more than a year.
Microsoft is becoming a good short, too; at these levels, it is already time to
start nibbling. On the buy side, there are dozens of feisty young companies --
Red Hat, Sco Group, and VA Software -- that are already taking advantage of the
new global paradigm."
(I suspect he hasn't been studying the SCO lawsuit very carefully.)
or
"Sell the proprietary software makers, buy the feisty open-source
servicers. If the software behemoths awake, you'll read about it first here. In
the meantime, that low rumble you hear from Santa Clara, Redwood City, and
Redmond isn't a giant stirring. It's just a loud snore."
Think about it. The head of the Alexis de Toqueville Institution is telling the
world to short MS, Sun, and Oracle and buy Red Hat and VA Software. If that's
not a big win, I don't know what is.
Alex[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Coordinated FUD - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 04:44 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: bobh on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 02:33 PM EDT |
| I saw this article posted last night in the form of a UPI story. I was hoping it
would show up here, because there are no provisions for commenting on it at
UPI.
Speaking as a veteran of 25 years in the computer business, I can say
with some certainty that this is one of the very worst articles ever written
about any controversy in the industry. Virtually every paragraph is
testimony to the author's complete ignorance of the subject matter, where
subject matter includes not only the historical "facts" provided and the
technical issues discussed, but the financial perspectives as well. On every
dimension, this article is a piece of absolute trash that should never have made
it past an editor. There is hardly a sentence in it that does not contain a
glaring error of fact or a ludicrious, ignorant interpretation of events.
My
first thought was to rip this article apart line by line, but it is not worth
the effort, and the result would be three times as long. And for what?
Only
last week we were wondering how it could happen that supposedly intelligent
institutional investment fund managers took positions in SCO. Today we see the
reason why: a "Chief Investment Officer" of something called the Democratic
Century Fund does not know SCO from Shinola, but purports to write an article
for us outlining all the major issues. This is the case where an author should
indeed have remained quiet and be thought the fool, for now he has removed all
doubt. While I am not in the business of offering investment advice, I will say
this: Mr. Fossedal is not even minimally competent to analyze events in the
computer industry, and to the extent he does so, investors would be wise to
steer clear of his fund.
I will pick on two statements in the article, not
because they are particularly momentous, but because they reveal the depth of
the sheer ignorance Mr. Fossedal brings to this subject.
First, this gem:
"Straightforward piracy is an issue solved for the software industry 25 years
ago by a brilliant young executive named Bill Gates, who realized that only by
basing software on undisclosed "source code" could the industry ever really
thrive." That statement is beyond ignorant. It defies explanation as a coherent
thought. Software piracy has nothing to do with whether source code is open or
closed. It has hardly been solved, and was certainly not solved 25 years ago.
And to say that Bill Gates had anything to do with any of this is baffling...
closed-source software was common before Bill Gates was born. The only
conclusions one can draw from this are that (a) the author does not know what he
is talking about; (b) the author is ignorant of even basic history concerning
the subject he is writing about; and (c) the author is highly enamored of Mr.
Gates, to whom he ignorantly attributes feats that Mr. Gates had nothing to do
with.
Perhaps what Mr. Fossedal lacks in history and technical acumen he will
make up for with his financial brilliance and stock market expertise. No such
luck. Consider the "feisty young company" VA Software that Mr. Fossedal puts on
the "buy side.". Does Mr. Fossedal not know what company this is? VA Software
is the "inner child" of VA Linux, one of the brighest supernovas to ever explode
on the IPO scene. It is the Poster Boy stock for the over-valued dot-com company
that went public, saw its stock shoot into the stratosphere, only to have the
company go splat. Again, the conclusion one draws is that Mr. Fossedal is
writing of these things with only the barest familiarity with the subject
matter. The VA Linux debacle was a very famous one, and widely-discussed; to be
ignorant of that histiry is to not follow technology stocks at all. Yet this
fellow would have us believe he is competent to write this article. He isn't.
He's a dilettante who's in way over his head. Either that, or he is paid shill
who lied on purpose for money. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Phong on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 03:36 PM EDT |
| PJ says: Linux is a kernel, not an operating system. However, it's
actually both, regardless of how much RMS may wish otherwise.
You can see
the duality of naming from the earliest days of Linux in this announcement
from Linus Torvalds himself. In it he clearly uses the term "Linux" to refer
to more than the kernel when he discusses the features and the included
utilities. I was there using Linux 0.11 (having switched over from using Minix),
so I'm fairly well acquainted with what was going on a the time. In the early
days the GNU folks were objecting to people working on Linux (since it took away
from the work on The Hurd) while the Linux folks were busy releasing entire
distributions. It is Richard Stallman who's mantra is to only refer to the
kernel as "Linux" and the OS as "GNU/Linux". Linus's response to this effort
was: "The midwife doesn't get to name the baby." Unfortunately his response was
also that he had better things to talk about, so RMS comes across has being the
official word on the matter because people rarely contradict him any
more.
My response to the GNU/Linux term is that it does not encompass all of
Linuxdom. The term "GNU" has meaning that is very tightly coupled to the "free
software" (libre) movement of the FSF. This ideology has strong advocacy
tendencies because they believe that closed source is not just an inconvenience
but a violation of a user's freedom. Linus has always been more of an "open
source" advocate, which means that the foundations of Linux are not hard-line
against closed source tools and drivers. (Open Source advocates tend to think
that using open source is a better solution for most problems rather than a
inalienable right.)
Since the Linux community consists of a collaboration of
both types of people, it is not accurate to call Linux "GNU/Linux" -- that term
implies that GNU is either the project name or the governing ideology behind
Linux, and that is just not the case. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ZeusLegion on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 04:00 PM EDT |
<a
href=http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/os/story/0,2000048630,20279309,00.htm>H
ERE's<a> an article where some jack@$$ bashes the holy heck out of
"Linux fanatics".
What this jerk doesn't understand, at the very least, is that when you're
surrounded by liars and shills, sometimes you HAVE to be "fanatic"
in order for your voice to be heard over the cacophony of Ben Franklins falling
into the pockets of unethical people.
I think the community has proven time and again that there actually ARE plenty
of so-called experts who don't have the slightest clue what they're talking
about or actually DO have questionable ties to Microsoft that might influence
their opinion.
If some guy keeps saying "The sky is green, the sky is green." I'm
going to say "No its not." only so many times before my fist says
hello to his face. While maybe not the best course of action, it is a natural
and justfiable reaction.
And they wonder why there's so much hostility.
Speaking of only being able to hear things that are wrong for so long,
"etc." is pronounced Et Cetera (from the Latin) and not Eks Setra or
Excedrin or any other way. Just thought I'd get that out of the way right now.
:)
---
Z[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gumout on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 04:30 PM EDT |
Author Gregory Fossedal states, "-- because under the licensing
arrangements for using Linux, programmers who improve or make changes to the
system must agree that their innovations become the property of the
system."
The author is paraphrasing the FUD of McBride and Sontag concerning copyright
transfer. He probably really believes what they claim about the GPL.
"In copyright law, ownership cannot be transferred without express,
written authority of a copyright holder. Some have claimed that, because SCO
software code was present in software distributed under the GPL, SCO has
forfeited its rights to this code. Not so – SCO never gave permission, or
granted rights, for this to happen." -- Darl Mcbride
"Copyright law specifies that you can't accidentally transfer a copyright
from yourself inadvertently, you have to do it with a legal contract with
signatures of both parties."
-- Chris Sontag
A close reading of the Copyright Act shows:
Sec. 204. Execution of transfers of copyright ownership
(a) A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of
law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of
the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or
such owner's duly authorized agent.
Sec. 101 definitions:
''transfer of copyright ownership'' is an assignment,
mortgage, exclusive license, or any other conveyance, alienation,
or hypothecation of a copyright or of any of the exclusive rights
comprised in a copyright, whether or not it is limited in time or
place of effect, but not including a non-exclusive license.
The GPL is a NON-EXCLUSIVE LICENSE and does not qualify under the Copyright Act
as a "transfer of copyright ownership" as defined in Sec. 101
definitions. Sec. 204 (a) does not have any legal force at all with respect to
the GPL. Congress explicitly exempted a "non-exclusive" license such
as the GPL (and thus "shrink wrap" licenses) from the formal
requirements of Sec 204(a).
-- THE GPL IS PROHIBITED BY STATUTORY LAW FROM TRANSFERING LEGAL COPYRIGHT
OWNERSHIP --
---
THERE IS NO INFRINGING CODE[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 08:46 PM EDT |
"Stowell disputed the idea that SCO could no longer distribute Linux.
"We're the copyright holder for the core Unix operating system. If we
want to charge someone a licensing fee for using our copyrighted software
that's gone into Linux, then we have that prerogative," he said.
"If we want to continue to distribute Linux to our existing customers, we
can do that because we own the copyrights on that Unix software."
every time i read this i amazed at the arrogance of his thinking
it is like a grown up rebuking a child like how dare anyone question his
authority
he doesnt realize adults are involved here
they chose to ALLOW this code to be used under the GPL
they didnt give the code away
they allowed the USE of the code
what about their rights darl?
where is your moral ground to STEAL their rights?
amazing
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 08:52 PM EDT |
I hit the delete link instead of reply. I'm sorry. Pls. feel free to
recomment, whoever you are.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 09:49 PM EDT |
I was reading the article and thinking, No, PJ got this one wrong: it's heavily
struggling-to-keep-a-straight-face satire. There could be no other explanation
for the content.
But about a third of the way in, yeah, the tone gets really nasty. What I
thought was a restrained smirk turns into an unmistakable sneer.
I kinda felt a bit embarrassed for Darl, too. This reporter is like a retarded
kid who comes up to you in the mall and starts hugging you. You want to extract
yourself in a polite way because you don't want every passerby staring at
you... wait, Darl DOES want every passerby staring at him. Sorry, bad analogy.
If there is no other benefit, at least the SCO fiasco is sorting the morons from
the competent I.T. reporters/analysts. And yes, it's funny and frightening to
see most of the awful reporting getting traced back to MS.
Speaking of MS, at what point do they do an about-face (ala the internet) and
figure out how to blend linux and Windows? Have they been trying to figure it
out already but failed to find a way because of the pesky GPL?
The problem for MS: how to continue to sell Windows while embracing Linux?
The answer (??): a) make Windows run Linux apps, like the LKP, I suppose; b) use
their Windows architect/insider knowledge to build the best virtual machine that
lets you run Windows on Linux; c) shout to the world about how Windows gives you
the best of both worlds. The only way they can keep ahead of Linux is by
offering more than Linux can provide alone.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Coordinated FUD - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 10:45 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 10:59 PM EDT |
http://tinyurl.com/pr32
from cnet this is amazing is all i can say
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 11:18 PM EDT |
http://tinyurl.com/pr51
from a utah paper ,and not a tech journalist she comes across as more reliable
than some of the FUDSTERS
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: raindog on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 02:21 AM EDT |
I dunno, what I get out of the article isn't so much someone who's trying to
damn free software with faint praise, but a slightly bitter rant against
Microsoft by someone who doesn't understand free software but has been writing
negatively about it for some time and can't bring himself to write of it
melioratively.
In other words, I wonder if Microsoft gave ADTI less money than usual this year.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 06:47 AM EDT |
IMHO, the person who wrote this article is clueless. But then, so is Microsoft
and much of the software industry. Especially the so-called
"analysts." There are market forces at work here that can't be
stopped. Look at hardware prices- they have continually fallen for years- back
in the early 90s, a 420 MB SCSI drive cost me about $1200. Now, I can buy 200
GB fast IDE drives for a couple of hundred. Hard drive technology is IP also,
or haven't the software whiners noticed?
Now, why haven't software prices dropped like hardware prices? I mean-
software distribution is almost a license to steal- once the stuff is developed,
you can manufacture any quantity of the software for extremely low cost- a few
floppies or cd's and shipping expense, or upkeep of an ftp site. If commercial
software prices had dropped like hardware prices, MS Win or Unix would cost
about 5 dollars, and Office perhaps ten dollars.
It's simply greed at work here, circumventing the market trend towards lower
informnation costs that have marked every industry for the last 100 years. And
this is why MS and the others will fail- not only is free software better, it is
working with, rather than against, market forces. Even if draconian laws MS is
in favor of pass, ultimately they will fail. No one owes Mr. Gates a living,
and the market is wising up, and revoking his license to steal.
My sister bought a new Dell computer 3 weeks ago, and was extremely frustrated
yesterday, when, for the 4th time that day, XP locked up when running WP. She
called me for advice, and I told her that the problem was her MS operating
system. Why do people buy MS, she asked- it sucks. Yeah, I replied- why did
you buy it? Because it was on the computer when I bought it, was her reply. I
bought her a subscription to Lindows, and today am shipping the disks out (she
can't get XP online <G>).
This is greed in action, and this is what will get Billy and Stevie and friends
kicked out of the sandbox. No one likes crappy software that doesn't work.
Richard Stallman realized this almost 20 years, and developed free software.
Would you buy a car you couldn't repair, he asked. Good point.
All of this talk about IP is nonsense. Any group of skilled programmers can
write an operating system. The knowledge of how to do so is out there and can
be had for a few hundred dollars- just go buy the textbooks and start studying.
The programmers at Mark Williams Company wrote an OS, and so have various groups
of college students. And most were better than "MS Windows".....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 07:01 AM EDT |
Did anyone respond to this guy and point out his errors? Or write a letter to
his editor? I mean a nice, reasoned letter, not one of the "Hey dude,
you're a dumbass" variety.
This writer has made enough factual mistakes that several retractions are
probably in order. I might suggest mails to his 'de Tocqueville' org too.
Maybe send'em all to France if everything else fails....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 09:29 AM EDT |
http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/1003sgicompa.html
did i totally miss this in the article before?
they used the comparator to find the code
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 10:24 AM EDT |
is it possible that sco when they bought the unix code thought they were buying
something more than what they got?
is it possible this is all a lead up to OOPS we were mislead in what we were
buiying from novell?
then turn around and sue novell?
that would make it a logical thing for all the comments to build a case against
novell?
also they figured they would get bought but at worst they could turn around and
tie everything up by suing novell?
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 05:16 PM EDT |
This doesn't look like a charity to me. It looks like a Microsoft press
organization. If it is tax-exempt I suggest we contact the IRS.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 07:46 PM EDT |
http://www.zdnetindia.com/news/national/stories/366,67090.html
SCO to make India second largest tech base
Ashu Kumar , New Delhi,
September 27, 2002
"Unix and Linux platform company SCO Group is planning to develop India as
its second largest technology base after the United States. The US-based company
is also in the process of acquiring small software technology companies in
India. The plan involves setting up operations that would include core product
development, incubation of new product ideas, resource base for consulting and
support services for global operations."
"SCO group, which is known for its SCO-Unix on the Intel platform, was
taken over by Caldera early last year and merged with Caldera's Linux
division."
Just a year ago, they were going full steam ahead, merging, and then suddenly
they do an about face and demonize Linux. What happened? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 08:22 PM EDT |
http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit032.html
pretty good site too
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 04:28 PM EDT |
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/5013c.html
Here is the information about what restrictions exist for the formation of a
501(c)3 charity.
A tax exempt charity must be "... operated exclusively for religious,
charitable, scientific, literary or educational purposes, for the prevention of
cruelty to children or animals, or for the purpose of testing consumer products
for public safety, or to foster national or international amateur sports
competition ..."
The charity must refrain from certain types of activities:
"Nonpartisan analysis, study, research is permitted if the results are
made available to the general public. This may be done to ... as long as there
is a sufficiently full and fair exposition of the pertinent facts to enable the
public or an individual to form an independent opinion or conclusion."
I'd argue that they aren't providing a fair exposition of all the facts. From
just reading their published information I would have a completely different
idea of reality than from reading less biased sources.
"An organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of
private interests such as designated individuals, the creator or his family,
shareholders of the organization, or person controlled, directly or indirectly,
by such private interests."
So there is some stuff to work with, but it's pretty murky about supporting a
coporate interest, though corporations are considered individuals under the
law.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
