|
|
| Moglen: SCO Is Guilty of What the RIAA Calls Stealing |
 |
|
Friday, October 31 2003 @ 02:43 AM EST
|
Eben Moglen, the Free Software Foundation's attorney, is interviewed over on NewsForge regarding the Linksys situation, which appears to be moving along nicely to a resolution, and in the course of the interview, Moglen answers some of SCO's most absurd contentions. First, their saying that the FSF is the only proper enforcer of the GPL and thus should be a party to the action: "It is well known that the Free Software Foundation does not hold copyright in the Linux system kernel program. Linux is not part of the gnu project, which is why Mr. Stallman insists so much on the verbal distinction between GNU and Linux. Since we do not hold copyright in the Linux kernel, we do not enforce the GPL with respect to the Linux operating system kernel. Where, however, we believe the kernel is being distributed in a non-compliant fashion, that's an impediment to the full resolution of disputes about compliance where other free software foundation programs are involved, because we want the license respected as to all free software."
In short, copyright holders enforce their own copyrights. IBM has contributed their own copyrighted code to the kernel, unlike the FSF, so they are the appropriate party to bring an infringement claim. Duh. I guess we can all be glad the world found it so hard to say GNU/Linux, because SCO fell right into the pit, equating Linux, the kernel, with GNU/Linux, the everything, kernel plus the applications. They saw FSF enforcing other GPL issues and didn't notice that their lawsuit is only about the kernel. Not that it was nice not to call the whole works by their more accurate name, and once again, I see why it matters, but if you had planned it as a strategy, it couldn't have worked any better than this. There does seem to be an imbalance in the universe, though. Some lawyers, it seems, get paid millions and don't even bother to do basic research for a case. Go figure.
As to the the GPL being "unconstitutional", here is his response: "IBM, unlike the Free Software Foundation, has contributed a good deal of copyrighted work to the program called the Linux operating system kernel. And IBM is saying to SCO in its counter-claim something which I believe is entirely factually accurate and legally justified.
"That is: You are using our copyrighted work. You are redistributing our copyrighted work because you are continuing to distribute the Linux operating system kernel, which includes our copyrighted work. And you are doing so without permission. You owe us damages, and you must stop.
"When SCO returns to that the supposed defense that the GPL is invalid, that is not actually a defense of any kind. Even if it were true, which it is not, that there is some legal impediment to the use of GPL, all that would stand for would be that SCO has no permission to redistribute IBM's copyrighted work.
"Every week, somewhere in the newspaper that you read is a statement by Mr. Valenti of the MPAA , or by some authority at the RIAA saying that redistributing other people's copyrighted work without permission is stealing.
"I don't necessarily agree with that characterization, but I would point out that what IBM says, perfectly correctly, SCO is doing is precisely what RIAA and MPAA say is stealing: namely, the redistribution of copyrighted work without permission. . . .
"Now, as to what SCO says that the GPL violates the United States Constitution, it is simply nonsense. I have studied the United States legal system for my entire adult life. In addition to this work that I do on behalf on the Free Software Foundation, I earned a PhD in American Legal History, and have taught legal history throughout my academic career at front-rank law schools here and elsewhere in the world. I clerked at the United States Supreme Court. I have done a fair amount of studying of constitutional law. I don't see any basis of any kind anywhere for this absurd claim that giving somebody permission, using a certain form of words, to copy, modify, and redistribute copyrighted work in some way violates the United States constitution. That's ludicrous." I gather they teach you how to speak plainly in law school, because there is no missing his meaning. They are distributing other people's copyrighted works without permission, and that is what the RIAA calls stealing. SCO are software pirates, in RIAAspeak. And they don't know their Constitution as well as they think they do. Thank heaven. Can you imagine how it'd be if they knew what they were doing instead of being the Keystone Kops? SiliconValley.com puts it even a tad more plainly. They positively mock SCO's position: "And after this, we'll prove that the IRS doesn't legally exist: The General Public License (GPL) is not only unenforceable, void and/or voidable, it violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws. This according to SCO, where they seem to have taken up huffing paint thinner." Newsfactor uses headers like "Talking Big" and "SCO Running a Scam?" in its article, which also includes quotes from Moglen: "SCO's distribution of software under GPL contradicts its legal claims, Moglen said. 'SCO has distributed under GPL for years, and continues to do so. That means that SCO has permitted everybody to copy, modify and distribute that code. They can't go back now and say people don't have a right to distribute that code. 'In order to run the scam that it is running, demanding people pay license fees to them for use of the Linux kernel, SCO has to say the GPL doesn't do what the GPL says it does,' he argued.
"CHAOS vs. RULE OF LAW
"If the GPL were invalidated, it could have a negative impact on many Linux vendors who work under the license agreement. It could create confusion regarding software copyright issues across the Linux industry, and also might undermine one of the key principles of open source: that software can be modified and shared freely.
"But this outcome is unlikely, SuSE spokesperson Joe Eckert told NewsFactor. 'Fortunately, we live in a country governed by the rule of law, and I think we'll find out that the GPL is pretty solid.'" It looks like the tide is turning. SCO and Dupaco Are Back in Business, for a While Anyway Do you remember the Dutch SCO distributor who sued SCO over having its contract terminated so abruptly? The poor man came to the US to talk it over and was escorted out of the lobby by security personnel, IIRC. Well, after further negotiation, he has a new contract for at least six months. Of course, as usual with SCO, it's not as good as the first one. Here's a computer translation of the article,which is in Dutch, then edited by Hans Stoop and then by me, slighly:
The Hague, 14.29 hours - Software company SCO Group and its Dutch distributor, Dupaco, have resolved their dispute. Dupaco will continue the
distribution of SCO products. Both parties yesterday signed a contract, says Dupaco-directeur Bart van Rheenen.
"The American SCO Group decided in August to close down a number of
European offices. The country managers got the 'distribution franchise' offered. Elbert Vlastuin, country manager Benelux, accepted the offer and the contract with distributor Dupaco was canceled. Dupaco started a lawsuit, because the company found the notice of a
month, after a relation of seventeen years with SCO, much too short. . . .
"According to the contract now agreed upon, both SCO Benelux and Dupaco will distribute the products, but all delivered products are
invoiced by Dupaco. . . .
"Van Rheenen admits, however, that Dupaco will now have less margin on the SCO products then before. The new contract
has a duration of six months and can be extended with an additional six-months added each time. Thank you, Hans!
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 04:39 AM EST |
"They can't go back now and say people don't have a right to distribute
that code. 'In order to run the scam that it is running, demanding people pay
license fees to them for use of the Linux kernel, SCO has to say the GPL
doesn't do what the GPL says it does,' [Moglen] argued.
Actually, I find this characterization of SCO's position, well, charitable.
In my opinion, a better way to state SCO's legal theory would be, "SCO
has to say that the GPL grants its rights only to SCO, and the GPL restrictions
apply only to those who are not SCO."
Of course, I could be wrong, but that's the way it looks to me.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 04:45 AM EST |
From the Newsfactor article: If SCO were to successfully invalidate the GPL --
which has never been legally challenged -- it could have an enormous impact on
Linux's future.
And if pigs could fly, it could have enormous impact on the prevailing theories
of aerodynamics.
Which, with SCO's greed, gives new if somewhat cliched meaning to the idea of
trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 05:07 AM EST |
Actually, I have a theory on why the media is suddenly anti-SCO. Way
back in June/July, SCO presented something under NDA which led to
quite a number of media articles from people who didn't know Unix
claiming SCO had a very strong case. The NDA is so restrictive that the
reporters and analysts can't even give a yes or no answer to whether the
private presentations matched the thoroughly debunked Las Vegas
show, but reporters who have been lied to are apt to write negative
stories about you. Any PR person will tell you that the media will never
ever ever ever ever ever ever admit they were wrong. But on the other
hand, who says they have to present the same side of the story every
time?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Hygrocybe on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 05:17 AM EST |
Funny you should say this; I was discussing "the possibility of SCO's
share price beginning to plummet and rapid sell offs occurring" with one
of my Linux friends earlier in the day. This was triggered by my full reading of
IBM's pdf format reply to SCO in the Groklaw section:
SCO'S ANSWER TO IBM'S AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS As Text
Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 03:49 PM EST
IBM's document makes the point loud and clear that SCO's actions are FUD,
false publicity and seek to condition the market that SCO has rights to Linux
that it does not have.
If IBM's document was made public at the stock exchange I think there might be
some soul searching. Whichever, SCO is , in my opinion, in deep trouble.
---
LamingtonNP[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Newsfactor item - Authored by: PM on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 06:35 AM EST
- Newsfactor item - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 08:03 AM EST
- Investing - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 09:08 AM EST
- Newsfactor item - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 09:22 AM EST
- Newsfactor item - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 02:28 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 05:27 AM EST |
IANAL, this is a genuine question
Could the No Electronic Theft
Act (eventually) apply? (if
IBM's allegations are proven in court, which of
course they haven't been yet)
From above link
"Criminal
Infringement.--Any person who infringes a copyright willfully
... for purposes
of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or "
(I realize
there is additional info and definitions, at the link, and
that SCO/IBM is currently a civil law
suit only).
Regarding the civil
law suit, my question, relates to whether IBM are laying
their ground work for
additional civil damages, or intend to attempt prove violation of this act
(to
admittedly the lower civil standard of evidence) as precursor to potential
government action.
Note: In paragraph 125 of amended counterclaims, IBM
specifically alleges "willful", the exact word used in the NET act.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 05:30 AM EST |
I think IBM pretty much knew how SCO would reply to the motion to compel
discovery.
Read paragraph 69 of IBM's amended complaint.
I
hope this means IBM's reply to SCO's memo in opposition will be a good 'un.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 05:37 AM EST |
| http://www.theregister.
co.uk/content/4/33697.html [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 06:46 AM EST |
Does IBM retain power or responsibility for challanging copyright infringment,
by law or by the assignment contract that placed their work in the Kernel?
jog[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 07:22 AM EST |
Here's someone who makes a good point about SCO's selective enforcement
argument.
http://news.com.com/2001-7344_3-0.html?tag=nefd_gutspro
"The GPL is selectively enforced by the Free Software Foundation such that
enforcement of the GPL by IBM or others is waived...or otherwise barred as a
matter of equity," SCO said in a legal filing in its lawsuit against
IBM..."
"But SCO also is exercising some selectivity of its own when it comes to
its program to convince corporate customers to pay for Linux..."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 07:25 AM EST |
Even if it were true, which it is not, that there is some legal
impediment to the use of GPL, all that would stand for would be that SCO has no
permission to redistribute IBM's copyrighted work.
I'm
surprised SCO hasn't claimed fair use as an affirmative defense. True, the
nature of the copying is commercial and they copy the entire work; but the work
is an operating system kernel designed solely to comply with the POSIX standard
(--> not expressive?) ; and is given away for free (-> no effect on
market?).
Is there any risk they could make such a claim fly? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 07:28 AM EST |
Gartner's George Weiss, in a pretty good 2-part article, seems to
see through the FUD. He's singing the old "indemnification" song to a certain
extent, but all in all he seems to see SCO's FUD for what it is.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 07:30 AM EST |
Can this be true or are they mistaken and talking about the restricted kernel
download?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/33697.html
"In a move likely to antagonize the free software community even further,
the SCO Group is to resume distributing Linux, but only if you agree to a new
"IP license" which implicitly supports SCO's intellectual property
claims."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tcranbrook on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 08:01 AM EST |
This is only slightly OT, but quite relevant since so much of our research is
done with Google. There Is talk that MS is going to try to take over google.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/31/technology/31net.html?hp
As just a hint of what this would mean. A current serach for Linux on google
returns 58,500,000 hits. A similiar search on MSN - serach yields 419 hits.
And the frourth from the top includes this gem:
Alternatives to Linux-Apache-MySQL-PHP
What can we do to initiate and support a move for the DOJ to block any such
aquisition? (Ya, ya, I know, we tried this before. But, we have to try
again.)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 08:44 AM EST |
We are all indebted to RMS for the GNU movement and the GPL. However, as much as
I understand that RMS wants to toot his own GNU horn and call the Linux OS
GNU/Linux, I won't go with it. First of all, Linux is the kernel, so it should
be Linux/GNU, not GNU/Linux. Then, I run Linux Mandrake on my PC, but I'll be
damned if I know how GNU fits in my picture. When I start my PC, Linux (the
kernel) comes up, then X, then KDE. I also use some Gnome apps. So, as far as
I know, I run Linux/XFree86/KDE/Gnome, not Linux/GNU or GNU/Linux. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Linux/XFree86/KDE/Gnome - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 08:54 AM EST
- Linux/XFree86/KDE/Gnome - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 08:59 AM EST
- Not for everyone - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 11:42 AM EST
- Linux/XFree86/KDE/Gnome - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 09:00 AM EST
- Linux/XFree86/KDE/Gnome - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 09:06 AM EST
- GNU's in there - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 09:08 AM EST
- Linux/XFree86/KDE/Gnome - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 10:01 AM EST
- Linux/XFree86/KDE/Gnome - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 11:17 AM EST
- GNU/Linux/XFree86/KDE/Gnome - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 01:07 PM EST
- Linux/XFree86/KDE/Gnome - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 02:35 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 08:56 AM EST |
| The FSF has been awfully quiet in front of the assault launched by SCO against
the GPL. Moglen has made several statements in which he voices his opinions on
the matter, but I believe the FSF must go well beyond that and issue an
amicus curiae brief in which, as originators of the GPL, they will defend
it. The FSF must defend the GPL even if they, as correctly pointed out by
Moglen, are not directly involved in the IBM/SCOG case. Like it or not, the
assault against the GPL goes well beyond Linux, IBM, SCOG and SGI, ans the FSF
can't, for ever, stay on the sidelines as a spectator. The Samba team has
addressed a letter to SCO in which they voice their position. Why isn't the FSF
doing the same in the name of all the developers whose GPL'd works are being
illegally distributed by SCOG ? Get on it, Moglen ! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Alizarin on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 09:10 AM EST |
I love it... First Linus says they're smoking crack, and now SiliconValley.com
says they're huffing paint thinner.
Ahhhh I need a good laugh today.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 09:15 AM EST |
Here's another duplicitous position that I am getting from TSG filings and
comments:
The FSF is the only organization that can enforce the
GPL, but they can't because they lack privity in the case, IBM must enjoin them
for that to happen.
ROTFLMAO
/g[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Duplicity - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 02:08 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 09:35 AM EST |
Can you imagine how it'd be if they knew what they were doing instead of
being the Keystone Kops?
Yes, I can: Quiet.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: shadowman99 on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 10:55 AM EST |
It seems to me Dupaco has now entered into a faustian contract. SCO is
presently not entitled to market GPL software. Would Hans not be taking on
personal liability by selling SCO products under false licensing?
Or how about just a phenominal lack of common sense? They burned Hans. They are
openly hostile towards him and his Linux-using customers.
Perhaps Hans feels that he needs SCO in the short term while he transitions his
business and hooks up with another Linux vendor. Bad move. Does his really think
that Red Hat or Suse would have anything to do with him as a SCO "trusted
agent"? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jdos on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 12:28 PM EST |
SCO has just moved from an implicit violation of the GPL to an explicit one.
You could argue the "if the GPL were invalid then SCO..." case back and forth.
I don't think it would take much for SCO to wiggle out of a huge liability on
that count. In any case, SCO liability would hinge on the outcome of the
SCO/IBM suit/counter-suit.
This is different and unrelated to the IBM
action. They are distributing binaries with no source. That's an explicit
violation. Anyone that has contributed code to the binaries they are
distributing can sue them today. At the very least, cease and desist
letters are possible. Even an injunction. That based on current contract law.
SCO could respond with a challenge the GPL, but until the license is overturned
or set aside by a court, it is binding. SCO is violating the contract now and
can't argue that some future ruling might justify their current actions.
Also, since SCO is charging money for the illegally distributed
binaries, anyone who's copyright is being infringed is entitled to monetary
damages. They've made a fatal mistake. Someone with deep pockets to go after
an injuction could effectively put them out of business within weeks. Anyone
want to step up?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Government Action? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 12:39 PM EST
- Fatal Mistake - Authored by: tcranbrook on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 12:40 PM EST
- Fatal Mistake - Authored by: rongage on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 12:55 PM EST
- Fatal Mistake - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 01:43 PM EST
- Binaries with no source? Really? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 02:12 PM EST
- WHAT IF they are hoping to be sued by the little guy? - Authored by: shadowman99 on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 03:00 PM EST
- Danger of DMCA takedown - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 05:02 PM EST
- Fatal Mistake - Authored by: jdos on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 07:05 PM EST
- Fatal Mistake - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 10:00 PM EST
- Forget it - Let the professionals (with money) deal with it - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 07:54 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 12:41 PM EST |
<a href="http://URL goes here in double quotes">title of link
here -- can repeat URL </a>
Change "post mode" at the bottom of the message window from
"Plain Old Text" to "HTML Formatted"
To put a line of white space between paragraphs, use <p> on a line by
itself.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 12:52 PM EST |
| SCO in In other
news section [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 01:05 PM EST |
| Maybe we should all report them to the appropriate organizations:
http://www.bsa.org/usa/report/
:)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- BSA can NOT sue - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 01:12 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 01:24 PM EST |
According to the court web page
Third set of interrogs served to SCO in list of docs
No news on possible reply to SCO's memo in opposition to motion to compel
discovery[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 01:24 PM EST |
According to the court web page
Third set of interrogs served to SCO in list of docs
No news on possible reply to SCO's memo in opposition to motion to compel
discovery[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 02:43 PM EST |
Try this:
find /usr/share -name COPYING -exec head -1 {} \;[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 03:12 PM EST |
IANAL, so at what point can we expect any kind of ruling from a judge? Either
on the GPL, the discovery, or anything that's being tossed around.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 03:21 PM EST |
During the anti-trust action against IBM in the 1970s, IBM developed several
software systems to help them fight the government. Some of these were later
commercialised. One of them was STAIRS, a document indexing and retrieval tool,
and I think PROFS, their e-mail and calendaring product, was part of this. There
may have been others.
In this fight IBM has a tremendous incentive and
opportunity to repeat its actions of the 1970s and create tools to aid its
lawyers. This is a part of the story that does not appear to have come out yet.
It seems to me that SCO has massively underestimated what IBM is capable of.
IBM probably has more PhDs in its workforce then SCO has customers, and many of
these are the best that money can buy. If even a fraction of these turn their
attention to helping the lawyers, the results could be quite astounding. The
IBMers that I have met have been loyal and dedicated employees, who object to
attacks against the company so I expect that many would volunteer to help.
It
will be interesting to see how this part of the saga unfolds. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tazer on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 03:31 PM EST |
Not quite off topic. I received a call the other day, which was ultimately a
wrong number, but the lady, in an effort to determine if she was calling the
correct company, explained she was from IBM. After clearing up the wrong number
situation, I let her know that there are many people who are appreciative of
IBM's legal efforts to settle the SCO matter. I also explained that I realized
that IBM was a large company and she may not be familiar with the situation, but
regardless, at the very least, I was appreciative.
While that doesn't seem like much, IBM will eventually hear about these
'positive' responses, in some way or another, which will reaffirm IBM that
they are making the right move with GNU/Linux. It will also reaffirm the
position that some of us, if not most of us, would take should IBM pull the
stuff that SCO is.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kbwojo on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 03:56 PM EST |
The other day there was a long discussion about peoples concern that Sequent
NUMA and RCU code is not covered by the same kind of broad license like IBM’s
and therefore a weakness in IBM’s case. There seemed to be a lot of different
theories about how or if this code was covered, but there didn't seem to be a
solid answer to the question. This has been bugging me for the last few days and
I just couldn’t stop thinking about it. This concern was still going through my
mind today as I was reading through the headers for all the articles. One of the
headers caught my eye and a possible answer hit me. If the Sequent NUMA and RCU
code are not covered by the same broad license like IBM’s, couldn’t IBM just use
Copyright Preemption? In other words TSG group definition of derivative works
would be preempted by the Copyright Law definition of derivative works. By
Copyright Law NUMA and RCU would not be derivative works, but Original Works and
therefore was the property of Sequent now IBM’s and outside the scope of the
contract. Does anyone have any thoughts or ideas about this?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 04:19 PM EST |
SCO says the GPL violates the constitution. SCO fights the GPL and defends the
constitution.
There is a saying that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 05:22 PM EST |
What did they ACTUALLY change?
When I go to ftp://ftp.sco.com/ it does NOT ask me for a
password or anything, I have NOT registered, I can just click around and see
stuff all over. In the pub subdirectory, there appears to be lots of Linux
source especially under OpenLinux3.1.1[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 05:55 PM EST |
"These aren't the droids we're looking for."
I can't help but think about SCO's desire to change their licence and the
meaning of words at their choosing. "Today everything that says it's free
will cost $699. When our customers ask questions, we answer 'yes'. It's
backwards day and 'yes' means 'no'...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tazer on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 07:11 PM EST |
I haven't done a thourough search to see if this link had been posted, but if
it hasn't, here it is:
http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php?id=1089254010&fp=16&fpid=0
Pretty interesting read.
My opinion on Proprietary vs OSS software is best described by this example:
The company I work for employes a small trucking fleet, to move product around
the US and Canada. We use a specific piece of proprietary software to map the
most efficient routes for our drivers to take. One day, the lady in charge of
routing, received an odd error and called me. After spending a few minutes on
it, we narrowed the possibilities down to a ZIP code issue. Sure enough, we
tried a separate route, with only an origin ZIP and a destination ZIP, and got
the same error. Since I knew the origin ZIP was fine, it had to be the
destination. So I called tech support for this product and was told I would be
called back, once they verified the issue. Later that day, I was told that this
ZIP code was left out of the database and indeed I had a valid issue. I was
then swiftly told, they were no longer supporting that product and wouldn't fix
the problem, as a new version was going to ship in 1 month, which I could
purchase in advance.
So, you make a crappy product, refuse to support it and try and squeeze even
more money out of your customers by forcing them to upgrade? How is that
business model better than, get it for free, modify it at your leisure, or pay a
contractor to fix it for you, and upgrade to the new version for free? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Glenn on Friday, October 31 2003 @ 10:38 PM EST |
Off topic but... What has happened to Lewis Mettler's website. He has
published several analyses of different aspects of the SCO debacle but now, all
of a sudden I cannot access his website. Does anyone know what is going
on?
http://lamlaw.com/
Glenn [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 01 2003 @ 10:01 AM EST |
A very interesting search of SCO code found worldwide!
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=1600684464&a
mp;tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=57349
Dan M[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
