|
|
| Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto |
 |
|
Thursday, December 04 2003 @ 07:59 PM EST
|
Have you read Darl McBride's "Greed is Good" and it's constitutional too manifesto? I take it as his PR explanation for what they threaten to do next: imitate the legal tactics of the RIAA. We knew that already, because Darl told us at the very beginning that he meant to do this. There is a plan that they are following, no doubt about it. And of course, it comes on the eve of their appearance in court Friday in the IBM case, so it may have a protective purpose with regards to the stock's value. It is logical SCO would be drawn to the DMCA. Naturally, one of the most hated companies in the world would think of using one of the most unpopular laws. SCO would like to behave badly in order to make some money, and in case you don't like it, they are, in this manifesto, telling you to submit to "the rule of law" of the DMCA, which they indicate they are about to use in the name of making some "constitutional" profits. The problem they face, however, is, they have yet to prove to anyone that they have any copyrights to anything that anybody is violating. Would that not be a good first step? At least the RIAA actually have copyrights in the materials they seek to protect by legally bludgeoning grannies and 12-year-old citizens with the DMCA. SCO has yet to prove they have any such rights.
Surely there can be no better news than that SCO intends to use the DMCA in some publicly venal way in its quest for money. Could there be a quicker way to get the law changed once and for all? This is exactly how laws that go too far end up getting changed: when people see the law play out in oppressive and unjust ways, they just change the law, one way or another. America was founded on the principle that laws that aren't working out can be changed, not enshrined. I am confident that the FSF will answer SCO's constitutional spinach and their lies soon. Yes, lies. The GPL is not against making money. That's just one lie. Eben Moglen is an expert in Constitutional law as well as the world's foremost legal expert on the GPL, after all. Meanwhile, here is Larry Lessig's wonderfully complete response, in which he mocks and destroys Darl's "legal" arguments, point by point. My favorite paragraph: SCO: GPL is exactly opposite in its effect from the 'copyright' laws adopted by the US Congress and the European Union
Lessig: Despite RMS's aversion to the term, the GPL trades on a property right that the laws of the US and EU grant 'authors' for their creative work. A property right means that the owner of the right has the right to do with his property whatever he wishes, consistent with the laws of the land. If he chooses to give his property away, that does not make it any less a property right. If he chooses to sell it for $1,000,000, that doesn't make it any less a property right. And if he chooses to license it on the condition that source code be made free, that doesn't make it any less a property right.
The laws of the US and the EU don't purport to restrict the conditions under which the owner of a copyright in software might license his software (except in ways that are not relevant to this debate). Under those laws, the owner of this property right has the right to sell his property, or license his property, or lock his property in a drawer. Again, it is his property, and he gets to do with it as he wishes.
The GPL thus precisely advances the 'effect' of Congress's and the EU's copyright laws: it gives the owner of a property right the right to do with his property what he wants.
But here is the odd part: SCO's lawyers didn't write this manifesto and neither did Darl, judging by the headers on the Word file. Yes, thanks to Microsoft's utter disregard for user privacy, we know who actually wrote this document, or at least whose computer was used. You see, Microsoft preserves such info as metadata, little pieces of info about you in the headers of each document you write in Word. Someone on Yahoo took a look at the document's Properties, and the document records that it was written by Kevin McBride and Dean Zimmerman, who is apparently a tech writer.
Perhaps you didn't know your Microsoft operating system was keeping track of you like that. If you don't want it to, here are directions on how to make it stop. Or just switch to GNU/Linux and taste freedom.
Naturally, the SCO lawyers wouldn't be caught dead writing such stuff as this manifesto, although they must have been asked, and I surely look forward to Mr. Moglen's response. Maybe they don't teach American history in the Utah school system any more, or else Darl (or his manifesto preparers) forgot an important detail. The US wasn't founded on profits. It was founded on liberty, on a yearning for freedom, as in Patrick Henry's impassioned, "Give me liberty, or give me death!" In that speech he spoke of "the holy cause of liberty" and in truth, people risked their lives and left all property behind in the old countries to try to find freedom in America. Has McBride forgotten the words of the Declaration of Independence? It is an explanation of why the colonists felt it necessary to get out from under an oppressive set of laws and strike out on their own, in a quest for not profits but freedom: When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. The country was founded, then, on the belief that government has as its proper purpose: to serve the public good. Further, the American Revolution was born out of a rebellion against unjust laws that the people perceived as robbing them of their God-given rights to liberty and out of their determination not to be economically exploited. Has SCO forgotten the Boston Tea Party? Darl's sanctimonious words about the rule of law could have been spoken by England's King George III. Was the Boston Tea Party not an uprising against a law passed by the then legally constituted government? Here is a list of some of the loathesome laws the colonists despised, including the infamous Stamp Act: Under the Stamp Act, all printed materials are taxed, including; newspapers, pamphlets, bills, legal documents, licenses, almanacs, dice and playing cards. The American colonists quickly unite in opposition, led by the most influential segments of colonial society - lawyers, publishers, land owners, ship builders and merchants - who are most affected by the Act, which is scheduled to go into effect on November 1. I'll tell you, it's not good to get lawyers upset. They know how to get things done. The Stamp Act was repealed. But that was followed by the Declaratory Act: On the same day it repealed the Stamp Act, the English Parliament passes the Declaratory Act stating that the British government has total power to legislate any laws governing the American colonies in all cases whatsoever. When goverments start to pass laws like that, you know somebody wants to do harm to somebody and get away with it, for their own profit. And so it proved to be, and in that sense, I think you could argue that America was born in a spirit of rebellion against unjust profits, against Great Britain's unjust, but titularly legal, attempts to make a profit at the expense of the Americans' rights and freedoms. The thing about oppressive laws is, sooner or later, people rebel, and when it starts, the oppressor invariably passes more and more oppressive laws in reaction. But the love of liberty runs too deep to kill, and when a law benefits only a few at the expense of the majority, there is trouble ahead. Of course, those who benefit economically from a law describe those who do not approve of their greed as outlaws, rebels, etc. December 16 is the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, by the way, and if you wish to brush up on it, here is a an eyewitness account by a participant and here is a short recounting of what led up to the event: In 1773, Britain's East India Company was sitting on large stocks of tea that it could not sell in England. It was on the verge of bankruptcy. In an effort to save it, the government passed the Tea Act of 1773, which gave the company the right to export its merchandise directly to the colonies without paying any of the regular taxes that were imposed on the colonial merchants, who had traditionally served as the middlemen in such transactions. With these privileges, the company could undersell American merchants and monopolize the colonial tea trade. . . . . . .the colonists responded by boycotting tea. Unlike earlier protests, this boycott mobilized large segments of the population. It also helped link the colonies together in a common experience of mass popular protest. Particularly important to the movement were the activities of colonial women, who were one of the principal consumers of tea and now became the leaders of the effort to the boycott. . . . Various colonies made plans to prevent the East India Company from landing its cargoes in colonial ports. In ports other than Boston, agents of the company were 'persuaded' to resign, and new shipments of tea were either returned to England or warehoused. In Boston, the agents refused to resign and, with the support of the royal governor, preparations were made to land incoming cargoes regardless of opposition. After failing to turn back the three ships in the harbor, local patriots led by Samuel Adams staged a spectacular drama. On the evening of December 16, 1773, three companies of fifty men each, masquerading as Mohawk Indians, passed through a tremendous crowd of spectators, went aboard the three ships, broke open the tea chests, and heaved them into the harbor. As the electrifying news of the Boston 'tea party' spread, other seaports followed the example and staged similar acts of resistance of their own. . . . When the Bostonians refused to pay for the property they had destroyed, George III and Lord North decided on a policy of coercion, to be applied only against Massachusetts, the so-called Coercive Acts. In these four acts of 1774, Parliament closed the port of Boston, drastically reduced the powers of self government in the colony, permitted royal officers to be trailed in other colonies or in England when accused of crimes, and provided for the quartering of troops in the colonists' barns and empty houses. Having to house the oppressor's soldiers in their homes and feed them at their own expense was not popular in American homes. The Coercive Acts were called The Intolerable Acts, in America. And can you imagine passing a law you would want to call the Coercive Acts? Here was the result: Responses came in several forms. Massachusetts, long viewed with suspicion by the other colonies, now received the sympathy and grudging respect of its neighbors. Also, moderates in both England and America were surprised by the harshness of the measures and many began drifting toward radical views. . . .
Perhaps the most important result of the Coercive Acts was the summoning of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, in September 1774. In the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of taking up Arms, dated July 6, 1775, the rebels explained what propelled them, and it wasn't profits: We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. -- Honour, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them. . . . If it was possible for men, who exercise their reason to believe, that the divine Author of our existence intended a part of the human race to hold an absolute property in, and an unbounded power over others, marked out by his infinite goodness and wisdom, as the objects of a legal domination never rightfully resistible, however severe and oppressive, the inhabitants of these colonies might at least require from the parliament of Great-Britain some evidence, that this dreadful authority over them, has been granted to that body. But a reverence for our great Creator, principles of humanity, and the dictates of common sense, must convince all those who reflect upon the subject, that government was instituted to promote the welfare of mankind, and ought to be administered for the attainment of that end. The legislature of Great-Britain, however, stimulated by an inordinate passion for a power not only unjustifiable, but which they know to be peculiarly reprobated by the very constitution of that kingdom, and desparate of success in any mode of contest, where regard should be had to truth, law, or right, have at length, deserting those, attempted to effect their cruel and impolitic purpose of enslaving these colonies by violence, and have thereby rendered it necessary for us to close with their last appeal from reason to arms. -- Yet, however blinded that assembly may be, by their intemperate rage for unlimited domination, so to slight justice and the opinion of mankind, we esteem ourselves bound by obligations of respect to the rest of the world, to make known the justice of our cause. Our forefathers, inhabitants of the island of Great-Britain, left their native land, to seek on these shores a residence for civil and religious freedom. At the expense of their blood, at the hazard of their fortunes, without the least charge to the country from which they removed, by unceasing labor, and an unconquerable spirit, they effected settlements in the distant and inhospitable wilds of America . . . With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, *declare*, that exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverence, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves. And the rest, as they say, is history. Just a little refresher course for those poor folks in Utah, who don't know a thing about the history of America. They don't know a thing about the Constitution, either, and they never have been able to figure out the GPL. But we'll leave that to Professor Moglen. But I said all this to say one thing: the GPL is about your freedom. And that is why it's as American as apple pie. You might enjoy to read "The GNU GPL and the American Way" by Richard Stallman. The GPL is based on copyright law. I just wrote an article about that, which LWN has published [sub req]. It's explaining how the GPL is a license, and it's based on an interview with Professor Moglen. It's a license which relaxes some of the restrictions of copyright law, but it depends upon copyright law for its enforcement. That being the case, it's obvious that those who release their code under the GPL are making use of copyright law, not fighting against it or trying to defeat it. We are counting on it to protect us from the corporate bad boys who wish to steal our creative work for their own economic profit. And by the way, SCO, if you don't like the GPL, we suggest you stop using GPL code in your products.
With that, here's the letter:
*******************************
December 4, 2003
An Open Letter:
Since last March The SCO Group ("SCO") has been involved in an increasingly
rancorous legal controversy over violations of our UNIX intellectual
property contract, and what we assert is the widespread presence of our
copyrighted UNIX code in Linux. These controversies will rage for at
least another 18 months, until our original case comes to trial.
Meanwhile, the facts SCO has raised have become one of the most
important and hotly debated technology issues this year, and often our
positions on these issues have been misunderstood or misrepresented.
Starting with this letter, I'd like to explain our positions on the key
issues. In the months ahead we'll post a series of letters on the SCO
Web site ( www.sco.com ). Each of
these letters will examine one of the many issues SCO has raised. In
this letter, we'll provide our view on the key issue of U.S. copyright
law versus the GNU GPL (General Public License).
SCO asserts that the GPL, under which Linux is distributed, violates the
United States Constitution and the U.S. copyright and patent laws.
Constitutional authority to enact patent and copyright laws was granted
to Congress by the Founding Fathers under Article I, § 8 of the United
States Constitution:
Congress shall have Power …
[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries.
This Constitutional declaration gave rise to our system of copyrights and
patents. Congress has enacted several iterations of the Copyright Act.
The foundation for current copy protection in technology products is
grounded in the 1976 Copyright Act. The 1976 Act grew out of
Congressional recognition that the United States was rapidly lagging
behind Japan and other countries in technology innovation. In order to
protect our ability to innovate and regain global leadership in
technology, Congress extended copyright protection to technology
innovations, including software. The 1976 Act had the desired effect.
The U.S. economy responded rapidly, and within 10 years had regained
global technology leadership.
Most recently, Congress has adopted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") to protect the intellectual property rights embodied in digital products
and software. Congress adopted the DMCA in recognition of the risk to
the American economy that digital technology could easily be pirated
and that without protection, American companies would unfairly lose
technology advantages to companies in other countries through piracy,
as had happened in the 1970's. It is paramount that the DMCA be given
full force and effect, as envisioned by Congress. The judgment of our
elected officials in Congress is the law of the land in the U.S.
copyright arena, and should be respected as such. If allowed to work
properly, we have no doubt that the DMCA will create a beneficial
effect for the entire economy in digital technology development,
similar to the benefits created by the 1976 Copyright Act.
However, there is a group of software developers in the United States, and other parts of the world, that do not believe in the approach to copyright
protection mandated by Congress. In the past 20 years, the Free
Software Foundation and others in the Open Source software movement
have set out to actively and intentionally undermine the U.S. and
European systems of copyrights and patents. Leaders of the FSF have
spent great efforts, written numerous articles and sometimes enforced
the provisions of the GPL as part of a deeply held belief in the need
to undermine or eliminate software patent and copyright laws.
The software license adopted by the GPL is called "copy left " by its authors. This is because the GPL has the effect of requiring free and open access to Linux (and
other) software code and prohibits any proprietary use thereof. As a
result, the GPL is exactly opposite in its effect from the "copy right " laws adopted by the US Congress and the European Union.
This stance against intellectual property laws has been adopted by several
companies in the software industry, most notably Red Hat. Red Hat's
position is that current U.S. intellectual property law "impedes
innovation in software development" and that "software patents are
inconsistent with open source/free software." Red Hat has aggressively lobbied Congress to eliminate software patents and copyrights. (see http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html ).
At SCO we take the opposite position. SCO believes that copyright and
patent laws adopted by the United States Congress and the European
Union are critical to the further growth and development of the $186
billion global software industry, and to the technology business in
general.
In taking this position SCO has been attacked by the Free Software Foundation, Red Hat and many software developers who support their efforts to eliminate software patents and copyrights. Internet chat boards are filled with attacks against SCO, its management and its lawyers. Personal threats abound. At times the
nature of these attacks is breathtaking – the emotions are obscuring
the very clear and important legal issues SCO has raised. This is to be
expected when the controversy concerns such deeply held beliefs.
Despite the raw emotions, however, the issue is clear: do you support
copyrights and ownership of intellectual property as envisioned by our
elected officials in Congress and the European Union, or do you support
"free" – as in free from ownership – intellectual property envisioned
by the Free Software Foundation, Red Hat and others? There really is no
middle ground. The future of the global economy hangs in the balance.
As
SCO prepares new initiatives to protect our intellectual property
rights, we do so with the knowledge that the most powerful voices in
our democratic process give clear support to the intellectual property
laws we seek to enforce. As stated above, the United States Congress
has adopted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to give clear and
unequivocal protection to copyright management information distributed
with software. We are also in accord with important decisions of the
United States Supreme Court in the copyright area. In the case of Eldred v. Ashcroft,
decided earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court gave clear
and unequivocal support to Congress's authority to legislate in the
copyright arena. The European Union remains firmly in support of
intellectual property laws, as embodied generally in the Berne
Convention.
Thus, SCO is confident that the legal
underpinning of our arguments is sound. We understand that the
litigation process is never easy for any party involved. Our stance on
this issue has made SCO very unpopular with some. But we believe that
we will prevail through the legal system, because our position is
consistent with the clear legal authority set down by the U.S.
Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court and the European Union.
To understand the strength of this authority, it is interesting to read the recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Eldred v. Ashcroft , 123 S.Ct. 769 (2003). In Eldred ,
key arguments similar to those advanced by the open source movement
with respect to copyright laws were fully considered, and rejected, by
the U.S. Supreme Court. This suggests that however forcefully Open
Source advocates argue against copyright and patent laws, and whatever
measures they take to circumvent those laws, our intellectual property
laws will carry the day.
The majority opinion in Eldred
was delivered by Justice Ginsberg, in which Chief Justice Rehnquist and
Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter and Thomas joined.
Dissenting opinions were filed by Justice Stevens and Justice Breyer.
In Eldred , the petitioner argued that the Copyright Term
Extension Act enacted by Congress in 1998 was unconstitutional. The
U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that Congress had full
constitutional authority to pass the Extension Act. The Court's
analysis of the constitutional foundation of the Copyright Act applies
directly to the debate between SCO and FSF/Red Hat regarding
intellectual property protection for software.
SCO argues that the authority of Congress under the U.S. Constitution to
"promote the Progress of Science and the useful arts…" inherently
includes a profit motive, and that protection for this profit motive
includes a Constitutional dimension. We believe that the "progress of
science" is best advanced by vigorously protecting the right of authors
and inventors to earn a profit from their work.
The Free Software Foundation, Red Hat and other GPL advocates take the
contrary position. The FSF and Red Hat believe that the progress of
science is best advanced by eliminating the profit motive from software
development and insuring free, unrestricted public access to software
innovations. The Free Software Foundation was established for this
purpose. The GPL implements this purpose. Red Hat speaks for a large
community of software developers dedicated to this purpose. However,
the U.S. Supreme Court has dramatically undercut this position with its
guidance in Eldred in how to define the term "promote the Progress of Science and the useful arts…" under the Constitution.
In Eldred ,
the U.S. Supreme Court addressed for the first time in recent history
the Constitutional meaning of the term "promote the Progress of Science
and the useful arts…" Seven Supreme Court justices defined the term one
way – and SCO agrees with this definition. Two dissenting justices
defined the term differently.
Let's consider the
dissenting view. Justice Breyer articulated a dissenting view that the
Constitutional objective of "promot[ing] the Progress of Science" is
oriented to benefit the general public good, rather than create a
private reward for authors. Justice Breyer posited:
The
Clause does not exist "to provide a special private benefit," … but to
"stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good…. The
"reward" is a means, not an end.
123 S.Ct. at
802-03. Under this view of the U.S. Constitution, Justice Breyer would
find a Congressional act unconstitutional if, among other things, "the
significant benefits that it bestows are private, not public." Of
course, this argument is at the very core of the positions advanced by
the Free Software Foundation, Red Hat, and the General Public License.
According to the FSF, Red Hat and under the GPL, private benefits are
impediments to the general advancement of science and technology, and
need to be eliminated entirely from the software industry and the
process of software development.
But, unfortunately
for the FSF, Red Hat and others, this dissenting view was squarely
rejected in the majority opinion delivered for the Court by Justice
Ginsberg. The majority position specifically acknowledges the
importance of the profit motive as it underpins the constitutionality
of the Copyright Act. In expressing this position, the majority opinion
stated as follows:
Justice Stevens' characterization
of reward to the author as "a secondary consideration" of copyright law
… understates the relationship between such rewards and the
relationship between such rewards and the "Progress of Science." As we
have explained, "[t]he economic philosophy behind the [Copyright
[C]lause … is the conviction that encouragement of individual effort by
personal gain is the best way to advance public welfare through the
talents of authors and inventors." … Accordingly, "copyright law celebrates
the profit motive, recognizing that the incentive to profit from the
exploitation of copyrights will redound to the public benefit by
resulting in the proliferation of knowledge…. The profit motive is the
engine that ensures the progress of science."… Rewarding authors for
their creative labor and "promot[ing] … Progress" are thus
complementary; as James Madison observed, in copyright "[t]he public
good fully coincides … with the claims of individuals." The Federalist
No. 43, p. 272 (D. Rossiter ed.1961.) Justice Breyer's assertion that
"copyright statutes must serve public, not private, ends" … similarly
misses the mark. The two ends are not mutually exclusive; copyright law
serves public ends by providing individuals with an incentive to pursue
private ones.
123 S.Ct. at 785, fn. 18; emphasis in original.
Based on the views of the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court, we
believe that adoption and use of the GPL by significant parts of the
software industry was a mistake. The positions of the Free Software
Foundation and Red Hat against proprietary software are ill-founded and
are contrary to our system of copyright and patent laws. We believe
that responsible corporations throughout the IT industry have advocated
use of the GPL without full analysis of its long-term detriment to our
economy. We are confident that these corporations will ultimately
reverse support for the GPL, and will pursue a more responsible
direction.
In the meantime, the U.S. Congress has
authorized legal action against copyright violators under the Copyright
Act and its most recent amendment, the Digital Millennium Copyright
Act. SCO intends to fully protect its rights granted under these Acts
against all who would use and distribute our intellectual property for
free, and would strip out copyright management information from our
proprietary code, use it in Linux, and distribute it under the GPL.
We take these actions secure in the knowledge that our system of copyright laws is built on the foundation of the U.S. Constitution and that our
rights will be protected under law. We do so knowing that those who
believe "software should be free" cannot prevail against the U.S.
Congress and voices of seven U.S. Supreme Court justices who believe
that "the motive of profit is the engine that ensures the progress of
science."
Sincerely,
Darl McBride
President & CEO
The SCO Group, Inc.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 04 2003 @ 11:10 PM EST |
The absolute best piece of writing yet PJ
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCO Copyright - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 09:23 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: archiesteel on Thursday, December 04 2003 @ 11:25 PM EST |
I don't understand - where did the Yahoo! poster get the
.doc file? Or was the information contained in the Web
Page header? Because if that was the case, then it's
gone...
Did someone at SCO screw up, and they tried to cover up
the tracks? Or was the .doc file made available? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gnuadam on Thursday, December 04 2003 @ 11:26 PM EST |
And it's official. Groklaw is large enough to have trolls.
When will moderation begin? :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: beast on Thursday, December 04 2003 @ 11:30 PM EST |
In this press release from Caldera dated 3 July, 2001, Dean Zimmerman is
listed as "Workstation Product Manager":
Caldera
announces plans to offer downloadable ISOs for OpenLinux 3.1
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Thursday, December 04 2003 @ 11:30 PM EST |
PJ awesome history lesson
as i said in previous post,sco is doomed to repeat history and will fail
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Whiplash on Thursday, December 04 2003 @ 11:30 PM EST |
Finally it has happened.
Darl (or whoever is writing the "open letters") is going to be doing
this on a regualar basis. PJ will respond. Darl will respond.
Will the fun ever end?
There are two things that come out of this:
1. To those in the "know" more laughter at SCOs mistaken/rubbish FUD
excerise.
2. Those that only read SCO (as they will press release this, versus the
GNU/Linux communities lack of marketing push [good or bad]) will continue to
BELIEVE SCO.
Watch the Stock rise. Its worth buying at the open. Sell on Monday afternoon
just prior to the facts of the Dec 5 hearing and make a couple of dollars!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: penguinroar on Thursday, December 04 2003 @ 11:32 PM EST |
Almost wet my pants...
Not being an american i have had the same view about the USA. Greed is something
pretty new to the american way that has gone rampant in later years. As corps
have got a bit to much to say in govt things have gotten out of hand. It
sometimes even feels like some recent wars is fought for money and not freedom.
U go grrrl!
---
Free market != greed.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: robwmc on Thursday, December 04 2003 @ 11:35 PM EST |
PJ, how appropriate that on the eve of the hearing you post such an
inspirational piece. Once again you have stepped up and pulled another
rabbit out of your hat. I am glad you are on our team.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- [cringe] - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 01:04 AM EST
- [cringe] - Authored by: Glenn on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 02:45 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: sam on Thursday, December 04 2003 @ 11:36 PM EST |
What time is the hearing tomorrow?
I'm going to attend and take notes.
How early should I arrive at court?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PM on Thursday, December 04 2003 @ 11:38 PM EST |
Three comments
1. While the GOP hold sway, do not hold your breath. It will almost certainly
need a change of guard.
2. What we are currently witnessing is a 21st century attempt to enact British
'Enclosures Act' type law with respect to copyright and patents by the
'greedies'. Was not this one of the reasons the founding fathers settled in
North america - to get away from serfdom? Now the likes of Bill Gates and Darl
McBride want to turn the clock back and will lobby politicians to try and get
their way.
3. The whole business model is based on greed and its proponents think it is
the only one that is valid. Yet the whole of society is underpinned by
co-operation, voluntry work and a sense of service. The proponents of the
business model now just cannot stand it when a major 'work' is created through
co-operation and voluntry effort. It has immense value so the 'greedies' look
to any way of grabbing it whether through court action or law changes.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 04 2003 @ 11:42 PM EST |
How does SCO justify their profit motive position? They have consistently
lost money. So, do you get to claim copyright or patents for your
software if you can not make money with it? They may have a profit
motive but they have no profit-ability.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 04 2003 @ 11:49 PM EST |
... to have you as a paralegal for the opposition in a
case against me :) Congrats
[I am not American, and just seeing what is becoming of
this country after being founded on such nice ideals makes
me want to run to the nearest airport and fly away...oh
wait, fying in the US is even worse, ok, I'll haul ass up
to Canada in my sweet little Golf]
Thanks for all your efforts!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jrc on Thursday, December 04 2003 @ 11:51 PM EST |
Thank you, PJ, for using history's sledgehammer on the fragile logic of Darl
McBride.
One point that I hope Groklaw will continue to make is the universality of these
principles of freedom which our founding fathers so eloquently quilled onto
parchment. The fight over the freedom to share source code is not an American
fight, even though the legal battle is occuring under the jurisdiction of the US
courts. It is one in which every citizen of the world has a stake, even if they
are not yet aware of exactly what is at risk.
- JC
---
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Mecha on Thursday, December 04 2003 @ 11:55 PM EST |
When I read it.. I was thinking "Is this what the CEOs of Tyco and Enron
were thinking." That as long as they make a profit, who cares what rights
the little guy had. Let me pump the price of the stock so I can sell it and
make the major stock holders (who also have tons of money invested elsewhere)
appear richer. Meanwhile, the little guy who invests buys the a few hundred
shares at the inflated price from the major stock holders. Then when the bomb
hits, too bad so sad that you lost all your money, you should invest more
wisely. WARNING TO ALL THOSE INVESTING IN SCO! If Bill Gates has invested lots
of his money into SCO, I wouldn't really worry too much. But I do not recall
that he has invested anything there.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nick on Thursday, December 04 2003 @ 11:58 PM EST |
After Darl's laughable 'profit is guaranteed by the Constitution' thought,
it's great to be reminded what that document and like-minded thought
of the day really was about. It really was a matter of loving freedom,
even if it meant rebelling against the profit paradigm of the day. So all
those GPL=communism trolls miss the point completely: The freedom
that the GPL guarantees, built upon copyright law itself, is as American
as it can get.
We may live in a time when corporate profits are worshipped above all by
some, but this country was not founded upon such principles. To have
Darl presume otherwise is odious.
Very well done article, and excellent technique: Take what the other
person mangled and use it against him. If it's the Constitution Darl's
references, throw its historical context and meaning right back at him.
Takes the wind right out of his sails.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 12:02 AM EST |
I wonder if what he's really doing is trying to clear a path for the legal
enforcement of the fees they're attempting to charge for Linux. By that I mean
that he isn't seriously suggesting that authors can't give away the fruits of
their labor (I don't remember him specifically saying that anywhere), but that
they can't do it in such a way that requires others to give away the fruits of
their labors, too. If they could strike down that part of the GPL (that you
have to share any changes you make to the software), they could charge for
Linux, and if any of the other copyright holders tried to sue them they could
say "you gave away your right to your part of this software, but you
can't take away my right to my part. So I can require anybody who uses it to
pay me for my parts regardless of what you're doing." I'm working from
memory, but it seems to track with their earlier contention that, because the
GPL is invalid, the closest thing to the copyright holder's wishes is to put
everything in the public domain. If they can get all the parts of Linux they
don't have a claim on put in the public domain, or if they can get the
"you must share also" part of the GPL killed, they're home free to
charge for the whole thing. This assumes they'll prevail in their contention
that they do own a substantial part of Linux, but that's the root of this dead
tree in any event.
joe f., a happy Slackware user. They'll get my Slackware when they pry it from
my cold, slack hands. Hmm. That slogan needs work.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 12:04 AM EST |
ex president jimmy carter that building houses in the habitat for humanity
program is unconstitutional
after all we arent supposed to do any contributing unless it is for money
wonder what darl gets out of his tithes to the church?cause the church must be
unconstitutional also
gaaahhhh
i wonder if my mind will ever think normally again
it is so contaminated with scospeak weasel thoughts
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Dan M on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 12:05 AM EST |
<eom>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: m0nkyman on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 12:14 AM EST |
| Despite the raw emotions, however, the issue is clear: do you support
copyrights and ownership of intellectual property as envisioned by our elected
officials in Congress and the European Union, or do you support “free” – as in
free from ownership – intellectual property envisioned by the Free Software
Foundation, Red Hat and others? There really is no middle ground. The future of
the global economy hangs in the balance.
No arguments with me on that
one. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mac586 on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 12:15 AM EST |
| I need to repost this one since it was buried so deep in the 400+ commentary on
the previous article.
From an Infoworl
d email interview with Linux concerning Darl's latest
blathering:
Linux backers blasted the letter, pointing out that
the GPL itself requires copyright protection in order to be enforceable, and
accusing SCO itself being a copyright violator by distributing Linux under terms
contrary to the GPL.
McBride's argument has its "fundamental facts
wrong," said Linux creator Linus Torvalds.
"I'm a big believer in
copyrights," Torvalds wrote in an e-mail interview. "Of all the intellectual
property (laws), copyright ... is the only one that is expressly designed so
that individual people can (and do) get them without having scads of lawyers on
their side."
"If Darl McBride was in charge, he'd probably make
marriage unconstitutional too, since clearly it de-emphasizes the commercial
nature of normal human interaction, and probably is a major impediment to the
commercial growth of prostitution," he wrote.
I thought his
"smoking crack" comment was funny. This one put me on the floor! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 12:16 AM EST |
I read Darl's open letter with great interest. My alias is The Mad Hatter, but
Darl is far madder than I. I've several comments, which I doubt he will like.
However, as Darl himself has indicated, "This ain't no popularity
contest."
1) The US Constitution. I have to admit I have never understood the almost
religious fervor that you 'Mericans have for your Constitution. However, you
have it, and knaves and thieves seem to gravitate towards it. It often seems
that the biggest crooks, swindlers, conmen, and jerks are those who wrap
themselves in it most closely.
2) The Constitution (for all it's flaws) protects property. This is a good
thing. It doesn't matter whether the property belongs to a multinational
corporation, or some poor redneck in the back woods, THE PROPERTY IS PROTECTED.
3) Darl (rogue and scoundrel) wraps himself in the Constitution for one purpose
only. He wishs to pull the greatest IP heist of all time. SCO wishs the GPL to
be declared invalid, and all of the code which is under the GPL declared public
domain. How can a man, who claims such concern over property rights back such a
scheme? Easy - his concern is for his own rights, and not his neighbours. He not
only would ignore a thief breaking into my house and stealing my property, HE
WOULD ENCOURAGE THIS ACTION IF THE THEIF LEFT MY GOODS ON THE LAWN WHERE DARL
COULD PICK THEM UP!
4) "Congress shall have Power … [t]o promote the Progress of Science and
useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Remember
this Darl. The writers of GPL software HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROFIT FROM THEIR
SOFTWARE. This means that if I release something under the GPL and you write and
addition to it and publish your addition you have to put your code under the
GPL, WHICH IS MY PROFIT FOR ALLOWING YOU TO SEE MY CODE. Darl is right in one
thing. GPL software has never been free in monetary terms, it's just that the
cost is covered in a different way. RMS wrote the GPL so that he would get a
payback on the software he wrote. That he takes that payment in source code does
not change the fact that he HAS BEEN PAID.
5) Darl wants to deny Linus, RMS, and all other software authors who have
released their products under the GPL their legitimately mandated payment. The
Copyright Act allows an author to publish and CHARGE WHATEVER THEY WANT FOR
THEIR COPYRIGHTED WORKS. It is your choice as to whether you want to pay the
price. Obviously a lot of people are more than willing to pay the price, and a
lot of companies. IBM was willing to spend 1,000,000,000.00 on upgrading the
Linux Kernal and the Gnu operating sytem layer. IBM is a well know publically
traded company that is fanatical about making profits, and they don't through
their money away.
6) How much is the Linux Kernal worth? At an estimated 5,000,000 lines, and an
estimated cost per line to produce of $100.00 American, the Linux 2.4 Kernal
cost $500,000,000.00 to produce. Yes, that much. Can I justify this? Yes.
Considering the Per Review method used to create the Kernal, there is far
greater overhead per line to produce it than for most proprietary products. Also
consider that many of the contributors do this in their spare time - in effect
they are putting in overtime which is usually defined as more than 44 hours per
week in the jurisdictions I am familiar with, and paid at a "Time and a
half" rate. And that price includes only the 2.4 Kernal. Add in the costs
to produce all of the earlier verions, and the price soars. Darl may be a thief
and a jerk but you have to admire his chutzpah - he REALLY thinks big. Who else
would consider and IP theft of this magnitude? I beat that Bill Gates is
probably drooling in awe.
7) Note that my estimated cost is lower than the amount of money that IBM
invested in Linux. Oh my - Darl's an even bigger thief than I thought!
So what do we do about SCO?
If I were you I'd pass this information on to everyone you can. I have never
seen an article on the economics of the GPL. RMS and Linus are as driven by the
profit motive as any CEO of a Fortune 500 company. They just take their payment
in a different way, and provide a fantastic product at a price that is utterly
incredible. No wonder Darl wants to steal it, SCO just does not have the
resources to develop a product like it.
The Mad Hatter
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MyPersonalOpinio on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 12:18 AM EST |
After reading Darl's manifesto (one of a series!, if we can still believe
something of what he is saying) I've been trying to write something coherent. It
has such an brocade of falsehoods that I couldn't figure out where to start,
where to continue and where to finish, just from the mental block. PJ, I very
much admire how you were able to respond beautifully.
I do hope that the
self-proclaimed "champion of copyright and patent laws" gets to feel the full
force of them. So far they're the only ones currently accused of copyright and
patent infringement, and they don't even hold a single patent remotely related
to this case!
The patent spin they try to put on the GPL escapes me, all it
has is a section dedicated to defending from patent infringement - by cautiously
detailing how to respect them. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fb on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 12:24 AM EST |
It should be clear enough by now. There is nothing in the GPL that rules out
being compensated for your work. But I'd assert this is too weak a claim.
Compensation is actually demanded by the GPL. And we're not talking
about intangible rewards here, either.
What you get back from issuing GPL'ed
code is other people's improvements to your own work. That's a pretty
concrete exchange: the fruit of other people's labor and best efforts in return
for your own.
Of course everybody else gets these rewards too, but that's
merely a nice side-effect. Still sounds like a juicy quid-pro-quo to me.
It's
hopeless to bring this up again, since everybody's made the same point before in
a zillion different ways, but it's breathtaking how SCO can take a series of
utterly antinomial statements and try to pass them off as logical
argument...never mind the false claims... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kuwan on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 12:29 AM EST |
After reading Darl's wonderful letter of ignorance and greed I'd have to
conclude that it was largely written by David Boies or one of his minions.
Though you have mentioned that the author, as indicated from the doc's
headers, was not McBride, or one of the lawyers, my guess is that it was
just composed by the authors mentioned, but the actual text originated
with a lawyer.
First of all it doesn't sound like the Darl we know and love. I've read
enough of his BS and listened to him enough to know his style and this
letter just doesn't have it. It tries to show some hint of intelligence
which we all know McBride is devoid of. Second, the information about
the Supreme Court rulings, the constitution, and the DMCA all read like a
lawyer wrote them. It reads like it came from the world's most ignorant
and incompetent lawyer, but it was definitely from a lawyer.
It's too bad for Boies that his name is being put on such utter trash. He
did have a good reputation once, but it'll be ruined before this case is
over.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: findlay on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 12:50 AM EST |
At least, such is my heady presumption. It befits free software to think of the
GPL as bearing the weight of constitutional law within that context, and
Stallman's original usenet post as a kind of declaration of independance.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Alex on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 12:56 AM EST |
Of course Darl add to the hypocrisy by forgetting that SCO released a
program called SAR (System Activity Reporter) u
nder an open source license.
Alex---
Destroying SCO one
bozon at a time [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: knutsondc on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 01:01 AM EST |
| Darl's really outdone himself this time! Does he mean to suggest that anyone
not using his copyrights or patents to make money should be stripped of his
rights because they're not using them for their supposed "intended purpose"?
His cavalier attitude towards the copyrights of the authors of GPLed code SCO
has used and incorporated into its own products suggests as much.
As I
trudged through Darl's extended exegesis of Eldridge v. Ashcroft, I
wondered whether he'd ever explain what it all had to do with SCO's contention
that the GPL is "unconstitutional," because it certainly wasn't becoming
apparent to me. A ruling interpreting Congress' constitutional power to grant
copyrights doesn't say anything about what private parties can do with those
copyrights. I should have known better by now -- SCO has never before felt
impelled to submit a coherent explanation of its wild claims and there was no
reason to expect Darl's latest screed to be any different. It was just a new
version of SCO's name-calling equating Linux developers, distributors and users
with thieves and communists.
I'm left wondering what Darl hoped to
accomplish with this new bit of lunacy. Stuff like this can only undercut
whatever puny credibility SCO's threats of copyright infringement litigation
against Linux users ever had. When somebody makes a completely nonsensical
argument such as this one, it leads one to question every other assertion that
person makes.
Darron
Darron C. Knutson
Attorney at
Law
dckATdknutsonlaw.com
DISCLAIMER: My postings should not be construed
as legal advice for any particular person reading them and no one should rely on
them in the conduct of their business or other important matters. Just reading
this posting doesn't make you a client of mine -- otherwise SCO's lawyers might
accuse me of monopolizing the market for legal advice by giving it away for free
{8^) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 01:08 AM EST |
PJ --
He's scared. It's all over his text. Frankly I blame you. Your "Cross
Your Heart and Hope to Die" piece basically handed him his a** on a
platter. He <I>had</I> to release this nonsense, so everybody
insanely rooting for him can be all "YEAH! CONSTITUTION ON OUR SIDE!!!
w00t"
I think the press is starting to catch up to the facts, and I think your work
here (EVERYONE's work here) is a big cause of that.
We're winning, and he knows it. I can't wait for tomorrow's outcome.
Keep it up...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Scriptwriter on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 01:11 AM EST |
| We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as
voluntary slavery.
Would that every American today would take this to
heart. Yet from what we install on our computers to what we are spoon-fed on TV
to what sorts of inconveniences we will put up with "for our convenience" to our
panicked reaction to terrorist threats real and imagined, we seem to be trying
to trade a lot of our freedom for a little bit of security, and in reality
getting neither.
We have met the enemy, and they is us.
Thank you for
the article, PJ. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 01:14 AM EST |
Now I know what happened to all the folks from Adequacy.org. They went to work
at SCO's PR department. :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Re: Long Live - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 02:16 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 01:15 AM EST |
I think everyone has missed what is being said here.
Darl has had an epiphany. He has come to the realization that we were right.
They distributed the code that they alleged was stolen under the GPL and they
had an intimate hand in creating the code in the first place.
He was left with the choice of admitting defeat or challanging the GPL.
What he is saying is that SCO should have the right to change their license
agreement presumably at any time for any reason.
Apparently he seems to think that copyright law implicitely allows this.
It does not. A license is a legal agreement. It establishes terms of use, of
course.
It is inconceviable that any court would invalidate that agreement because the
implications would be immense.
Imagine buying a car with a 60,000 mile warranty, but, as you drive it off the
lot you are handed a modified warranty agreement that states only that the
warranty expired after 10 feet. Sorry, best of luck to you.
In essance that is what Darl is arguing for. Just who is the anarchist?
Darl, turn back. Prison is bad but hell is worse. It's not to late to turn
over a better leaf and realize that it's ok.
Maybe SCO made a bad decision with releasing the GPL Linux distributions and
contributing to Linux, but, clearly it wasn't your fault. If you admit your
mistakes and ask for forgiveness you will be forgiven.
-Chris[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DaveAtFraud on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 01:22 AM EST |
| We've all been wondering about what grounds SCO/Boise would use to attack the
GPL as unconstitutional. Now we know: the GPL is unconstitutional because it
undercuts the profit motive for innovation. (Gee, I said that in 12 words
instead of Darl's 2196)
This argument, as usual for an argument from SCO, is
full of holes. A number of companies (such as IBM and Red Hat to name just two)
are making a profit from Free/Open Source Software (FOSS). Likewise, a number
of innovations have been showing up in FOSS long before they show up in
proprietary operating systems such as Windows and/or closed source Unixes (we're
still waiting for a version of Windows that doesn't crash every few days while
my Linux server here at home has been up 138 days and that really isn't even
that remarkable).
One need only look at the numerous GPLed packages (e.g.,
Samba, Apache, etc.) that SCO has seen fit to include in Unixware to see that
innovation has been greater in FOSS than in proprietary systems. GNU/Linux has
not made it impossible to make a profit; it has just made it more difficult (if
not impossible) to make a profit selling only an obsolete, closed source
operating system such as Unixware and this seems to be what SCO wants to be
constitutionally protected from.
As for protecting profits, there are many
examples in history in which technological progress made a previosly profitable
enterprise unprofitable to the benefit of the many but to the detriment of a
few. Just ask buggy whip manufacturers and blacksmiths of the late 19th century
what they think about the automobile. Like the buggy whip manufacturers and
blacksmiths, SCO has not only raised safety concerns (indemnification) but now
has also wrapped themself in the flag and called GNU/Linux and the GPL
unconstitutional. In wrapping their "all your Unix are belong to us" in poor
constitutional arguments, all SCO has managed to do is provide yet another
example proving Ambrose Bierce's dictum that patriotism is not the last refuge
of scoundrels; it is the first. While I enjoyed PJ's history lesson and agree
that the GPL is about freedom, the case is about profits and who gets them. SCO
sees what they think is somehow rightfully theirs as going to IBM and Red Hat
or, what probably rankles Darl & Co. the most, to apparently no one at all
because it goes to everyone. To paraphrase Ben
Franklin, the constitution only gives you the right to make a profit but you
have to do the work to generate that profit yourself.
Finally, I especially
found Darl's invocation of Eldred v. Ashcroft amusing since, while the
finding hinged on the narrow question of whether Congress had the right to
extend the duration of copyright protection, the argument raised was whether
this extension met the framer's intent of fostering innovation. The court
wisely agreed that they should not interfrere with the elected reprersentative's
decision that extending the duration of copyright protection met this intent
(sorry, I don't agree with judicial activism overriding laws even when I may not
agree with the law). I would say that this hardly bodes well for using the case
to attack the GPL since there is nothing in the GPL that unconstitutionally
invalidates copyright law. Congress did not create the GPL nor did Congress
ordain its use. It is simply yet another license under which a software
developer may chose to let others use his creation, albeit one which is very
inconvenient for SCO. I don't see the court chosing to interfere with this
right.
---
Quietly implementing RFC 1925 wherever I go. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Well, now we know - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 02:50 AM EST
- Well, now we know - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 04:37 AM EST
- Well, now we know - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 08 2003 @ 03:57 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 01:27 AM EST |
"We believe that the “progress of science” is best advanced by vigorously
protecting the right of authors and inventors to earn a profit from their
work."
As an inventor I have that right, genius. I also have the right to license my
work(s) under the GPL.
Use my work you do so under the terms of the license. Besides there's nothing
in the GPL that says you can't make money somehow someway.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: J.F. on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 01:36 AM EST |
Ah yes - the old "Boston Tea Party" myth. 19th century writers like
Walt Whitman destroyed American history with their fictional accounts of
"famous incidents" in American history. They are still being taught
today despite having been debunked for many decades.
The Boston Tea Party was simply a group of smugglers organized by such people as
John Hancock, a prominent smuggler of the period. They were making their fortune
on the fact that the British tax made smuggling Dutch tea profitable. When the
British dropped the tax to try to drive the smugglers out of business, they
retaliated by dumping the tea in the harbor.
Writers of the 19th century were busy reinventing American history to sell books
and rewrote such events to make them more palatable to patriotic Americans.
It'll be at least another generation before such tall-tales are purged from the
American educational system. While great story-telling, they shouldn't be
passed off as history. Making up history is for people like SCOG.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dtidrow on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 01:41 AM EST |
Somebody _please_ get Darl's doctor to up his lithium dosage - his
hallucinations are getting worse.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: markwooldridge on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 01:46 AM EST |
What on earth has a case to do with the validity of extending copyright on
existing articles that are just about to expire have to do with the licensing of
in-copyright works?
I can't see the connection Mr. McBride is trying to make here between the two
cases because it's like comparing apples with bricks here. They're both
totally and utterly different and this case he quotes has nothing whatsoever to
do with SCO vs IBM or vice versa.
Mark.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fcw on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 01:54 AM EST |
...can they stand outside with a tape recorder, please?
I need a new ringtone for my phone, and I think the sound of SCO's case,
bouncing down the steps of the courthouse on its bony arse, might do nicely.
Thanks.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kbwojo on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 02:49 AM EST |
Is Darl going to try and convince us next that it was actually the GPL and not
curiosity that killed the cat?
DISCLAIMER: No animals were harmed in the making of this post.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mikeca on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 03:06 AM EST |
Lest we forget, Darl McBride and SCO are attempting to pull off two of the
greatest IP thefts in history.
1 They are trying to get the GPL declared unconstitutional, and all GPLed
software declared public domain so they can steal the IP rights to all open
source software from the thousands of authors who wrote it.
2) They are trying to use the derivative works clause in a 15+ year old contract
to steal the rights to close to 1 million lines of code that were developed by
IBM, SGI and perhaps others.
And then Darl tries to lecture everyone on the importance of protecting authors
IP rights!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 03:12 AM EST |
This whole letter thing is basically PR fluff, and not even good PR fluff
It distorts the issues in contention, and portrays a strawman version of the
other side (the anti-SCO) in the debate.
1. Eldred v Ashcroft is about the power of congress to amend copyright laws (in
the particular example, to extend copyright terms so it was more years before
something fell into the public domain). And the Supreme Court basically upheld
congress had extremely broad powers (in the particular example, the constitution
allows copyrights for limited times, and extending the time, is still a limited
times).
Only those who believed in very strong judicial activism (both as a fact and as
being desirable), would have not expected the result.
In any case, Eldred v Ashcroft is totally irrelevant to the SCO situation. The
fact that copyrights eventually expire thru age has no relevance to the case(s).
None of the material has lost copyrights because of age (although arguably some
might have lost copyrights because of past distribution practises - and even
that is a side issue).
2. Nobody is disputing that SCO has the right to profit from or control its
copyrighted materials
3. SCO is (despite what they imply) suggesting GPL authors don't have the right
to control or profit from their material.
4. SCO has brought no copyright claims. All the copyright claims are AGAINST
SCO. Specifically declarative judgement that not infringing SCO copyright (Red
Hat), or copyright infringement claims (IBM)
In my opinion, a point by point rebuttal of SCO's letter is essentially
pointless, as is all this talk of American tradition of freedom and revolution.
The key is that SCO's entire argument is based on entirely false premises.
Knock away those false premises and show the true facts, and the SCO argument
collapses long before you get to examine the details of every sentence.
The fact that the letter and argument is SO BAD is interesting in and of itself.
I do not believe it is something that SCO can find convincing themselves. I do
not believe that SCO can use that letter as an argument in court, or even an
attempt to sell licenses for Linux. It is simply PR?
We also know SCO do not expect Linux users (individual or corporate) to be
convinced, and seem wholly unprepared to sell licenses anyway.
Ask yourself who is it designed to convince? The answer is simple... INVESTORS
It is so blindingly obvious and blatant that I simply can not believe everybody
can not see it for what it is. A stock scheme.
Here is how it worked (it has ALREADY worked):
In 2002:
Darl joins Caldera. Caldera is losing money, running out of cash, and the stock
is next to worthless. The entire company is worth about $10m.
Morgan Keegan and Co., are brought in to either sell the company, or get equity
financing. Equity financing means selling shares in the company to bring in new
funds. Of course, with the share price so low, it's not worth the effort nor
will generate much money.
Caldera buys back some of their stock cheap. Darl etc., looks over their Sys V
licenses, etc.
Caldera really wants to assert rights and arguments that would be more properly
asserted by Original SCO (i.e. Tarantella). Caldera is not Original SCO.
Caldera changes its name to SCO Group. Not because that would make them Original
SCO (nothing would). Not because that would work in court (it would not). But
because it would convince INVESTORS and press.
The first press releases are prepared at this time (Maureen O'Gara possibly,
and/or CNET get leaked advance copies so they know what is coming)
Jan 2003 - They start making noises about IP and Monterrey and other stuff.
They conduct a telephone survey to find out with retail investors if SCO can
increase their stock price this way.
Feb 2003 - The executives expect their stock price to go up soon, so grant
themselves masses of cheap options and file 10b5-1s to sell lots and lots of
shares.
Mar 2003 - They file suit against IBM. Of course it doesn't move the stock
price much, hence the PR volume gets turned up and up over the next few months.
HIGHLY INSTRUCTIVE: By March, or possibly earlier, they are talking about their
legal cases not to lawyers, or legal experts, or code experts ... but to
INVESTORS... ICMP, Renaissance, DBC, RBC, BayStar etc. Hopefully one or more
will believe - and some do!
HIGHLY INSTRUCTIVE: Executives sell MILLIONS of stock on their sales plans. Yes
it is not much as a percentage of the company, but considering they got many of
those options for a tenth of a cent, and the entire company was worth about $10m
last year - it is a HUGE PROFIT.
~30 May 2003 - Novell disputes SCO's copyrights. SCO share price falls.
~5 June 2003 - Advance news of what SCO will announce tomorrow leaks out (who
told?), and SCO price rises fast
~6 June 2003 - SCO says Novell is wrong, SCO holds UNIX copyrights.
Canopy sells a moribund company they largely own (Vultus) to SCO, a company they
largely own.
August 2003 - SCO share price crashes in wake of Red Hat law suit, and IBM
counter suit. A very carefully timed press release about Linux IP license sale,
saves the stock from disaster
And more recently... SCO finally achieves their real objective ... $50m in
equity financing for selling about 20% of the company. Remember 20% of the
company last year was worth $2m.
Why keep going? Call it the "decent interval" [think Vietnam], plus
of course they wouldn't mind selling more stock at inflated prices.
Have any doubts? Read RedHat's law suit, and the background facts in IBM's
counterclaims. While I do not know about Red Hat case ... strong documentary
evidence for all or practically all of IBM's counterclaims background facts can
be found by anybody, without access to priviledged documents.
I also recommend checking the history of Yarro, McBride and other SCO board
members.
In summary:
SCO have few if any strong legal arguments
SCO do not and have never had 3 teams of analysts of code
SCO do not care about selling Linux IP licenses, etc., except to the extent that
it might affect the stock price
SCO's intended audience for this letter, and ALL their past presentations has
not been the courts, has not been Linux users, etc... it is INVESTORS ... it has
ALWAYS BEEN investors.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 03:30 AM EST |
Out of love, honor, devotion and the utmost respect for He whom the Founding
Fathers called upon in their greatest hour of need, and in Honor of those
Founding Fathers who risked their very lives for those very God given freedoms
and liberties that we cherish so dear, I call upon God to assist us in our own
hour of need. Father we cherish these freedoms and liberties, let us not falter
now, let us be strong. Bless us in these endeavors to preserve and defend these
very freedoms whom our fathers fought for. Let us resist that terrible yoke of
slavery and tyranny. Amen.
May God bless you all in Jesus's name, lovers of freedom and liberty,
everyone.
"In the beginning of the contest with
Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for
Divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard and they were graciously
answered. All of us have observed frequent instances of a superintending
Providence in our favor. To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity
of consulting in peace on the means to establish our nation. Have we forgotten
our powerful Friend? Do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance? I
have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live the more convinced I am that
God governs in the affairs of men. If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground
without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We
are told, sir in the sacred writings, that 'except the Lord build the house,
they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this, and I also believe
that without His aid we shall succeed in our political building no better than
the builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our little, partial, local
interests, our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a
reproach and a byword to future ages. I therefore beg leave to move that
henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven an its blessing on our
deliberations be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to
business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to
officiate.
Benjamin Franklin "[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Chugiak on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 03:37 AM EST |
One thing that has been nagging me is the issue of what is required of you to
accept the GPL. As near as I can discern, nothing. You don't sign on a line,
nor click on a button. You either accept it or you don't. You can accept the
GPL and not distribute the GPL'd material. There is nothing to enforce with
respect to the GPL, as there is no requirement for you to accept it.
However if you are distributing someone else's copyrighted work, either
directly or derived, then you had best have a valid license or be willing to
accept the consequences of your copyright infringement. The valid license that
comes to mind is of course the GPL.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: John Douglas on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 03:44 AM EST |
Press release for the masses, suggesting that SCO opponants are actively trying
to undermine USA etc. etc.
Typical propaganda along the lines of 'hiring bodyguards'.
The suggested regular 'letter from SCO' will present equally one-sided
distorted views.
I should image that a lawyer has looked over these very carefully to ensure that
there are no items that are actionable.
---
As a Safety Critcal/Firmware Engineer, everything I do is automatically
incorrect until proven otherwise. (The one aspect of my work that my wife
understands).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 03:54 AM EST |
I openly embrace SCO's reinterpretation of the things which can be declared
unconstitutional. The Constitution was being selfish in only regulating the
government. We the people demand our actions, agreements, and clothing be
treated as legislation and that SCO rather than the Supreme Court be the
ultimate judge of what is and is not allowed.
I nominate Darl's hairstyle as unconstitutional because it inhibits my profit
motive by making me sick to my stomache. I pray for SCO to act quickly in
stricking down this unjust hairstyle!
(The above is meant jokingly, in case you were confused, Darl.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 04:15 AM EST |
McBride is apparently neither a historian nor a lawyer; either would be able to
tell you that the founder’s intent in granting limited copyrights and patents
was to insure that all innovation would eventually become public property. They
were well aware of how the British had used repressive trade secret and patent
legislation against the colonies in order to cripple the industrial development
of the colonies (and most particularly America) The founders had strong reason
to want to insure that, while an inventor might make a reasonable return upon an
invention, eventually all information was to be placed in the common market so
that it's knowledge would foster yet more creativity and industry. They well
understood that no one should be allowed to become a roadblock to prosperity nor
be allowed to block a path of industry against the common good.
A license that hastens this process can scarcely be against the Constitutional
intents of the founders.
Fortunately Lawyers and Judges DO go to law school and do understand both the
actual definitions of property rights and the underlying Constitutional
questions of copyright. Bad for Darl, good for us
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 04:30 AM EST |
without the least charge to the country from which they
removed,
I hate to contradict such a historical document. But this
part isn't true. The UK never actually recovered their investment in the early
colonies, and they did invest considerable resources in their
establishment.
Doesnt change the fact that they had every right to
revolt tho.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 04:33 AM EST |
one comment on this, and it's been stated briefly but not near as loudly as it
should be, if linux is anti-profit how is it that IDC came up with these
figures
$2.05 billion: Total revenue from sales of Linux servers in 2002, up 63 percent
from 2001.
http://news.com.com/2001-7344_3-0.html?tag=nefd_guts
(at the far bottom of the page)
thats a lot of money for something that's not there to charge for it's use.
Personally I'm starting to see where Linus was coming from when he suggested
that Darl is smoking crack.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 04:33 AM EST |
There is a building at 40th and Walnut Streets in Philadelphia, on the corner of
Penn's campus. It was donated to the city in the early 1900's, on the
condition that it be used to house a public library.
Not too long ago, Penn wanted to buy the property from the city, to build
something else there. The heirs of the donor sued, on the grounds that if the
city wasn't going to use it for a library anymore, then it should revert to
them, as per the terms of the donation to the city.
The city is now renovating the building *as a library*.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JMonroy on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 04:36 AM EST |
This letter from McBride sounds like a preface to a possible argument before the
Supreme Court. If they lose, I believe they are going to exercise their right
to appeal to the ragged end (Of course, this is assuming they don't get thrown
out of court this morning...)
From what is known about McBride, isn't
it apparent that he will appeal as long as cash and courts
allow?
---
if (!sco_wincase) { die("SCO"); } else { die("SCO"); } [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 05:29 AM EST |
Hang on I know what Darl is going to do next - he's going to trademark the
crack pipe and sue all the crack users for infringing on his ability deal death,
and he'll also sue the crack dealers cos they're stopping him from making a
profit dealing and smoking crack.
Dave
As Denis Leary once said "I was born with one crack, I don't need another
one right now. If I want to fart in stereo i'll get back to you"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 05:44 AM EST |
DEC 1 - Provo, Utah [BusinessWire]
The SCO Group announced today that the position of Senior Marketing Manager has
been filled by Iraq's former Minister of Information, Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 05:49 AM EST |
The Eldred v. Ashcroft (EvA) case which is referred to in the latest open letter
from SCO is of only tangential relevance to the argument about the Gnu Public
License (GPL).
EvA was about the constitutionality of extending existing copyright terms, not
about the enforcement or terms of copyright per se.
The outcome was that Congress does, apparently, have the right to extend
copyright terms as it wishes. This has no effect on the rights granted to the
copyright holder, just the length of time for which he can exercise them.
Now, the rights allow the copyright holder to impose terms and conditions on
recipients of copies of the copyrighted work. This allows, but crucially does
not compel, him to charge for the work, and to restrict the rights of others to
copy and distribute it.
Mr McBride appears to be arguing that copyright law should compel a copyright
holder to perform certain actions. As is usual, I must point out that I am not a
lawyer, but it seems clear to me that copyright holders are not compelled to do
anything, and they may impose whatever conditions for use of the copyrighted
work they see fit. This includes no conditions at all, and it also includes the
kinds of conditions available in the GPL.
Further, not only does copyright law not compel copyright owners to do anything,
it also does not compel potential licencees to agree to any particular terms or
conditions. If they do not like the terms of the license, then they are free
simply not to use the copyrighted work in question.
The GPL does not undermine copyright - in fact, it asserts that the copyright of
the authors is intact. It also asserts that those copyright holders wish to
exercise their legal right to impose terms and conditions on the licensee of the
copyrighted work. This is no different in principle from any other licensing
contract.
The fact that the specific terms and conditions are incompatible with SCO's
preferred licensing model is simply inconvenient for SCO. If you don't like it,
you don't have to use the work, you don't have to accept the contract.
The reference to the EvA case is therefore simply bluster, one of a series of
attempts by SCO to obfuscate its legal position further.
SCO may or may not have had a valid claim for its original objection - that its
code had made its way into a product covered by the GPL (the Linux kernel).
Personally, I do not think that they have even proved this point, but they have
pursued a strategy that has created for themselves a serious problem.
As doubt is cast upon each claim, the response is to escalate rather than
retract. Retraction would cause them immediate loss of face and financial loss.
Escalation effectively raises the stakes, and if they lose, then they can always
raise the stakes again.
At each escalation, however, their credibility declines. They have now reached
the point where they appear to be claiming that the accepting the existence of
the GPL places the constitution of the US into jeopardy. This, to me at least,
is clearly nonsense, and it leaves very little room to escalate again.
The case is further undermined by the fact that SCO themselves (a) have use
GPL'd code in their products and (b) have distibuted their own code under the
terms of the GPL. Neither of these actions are compatible with their present
stance.
SCO's original claim could have been settled quietly and with minimal fuss and
bad press. SCO have, however, deliberately chosen to inflate a molehill into a
mountain, and the bigger it gets, the less stable it looks, and the more it will
hurt when it falls on them.
Sean Ellis <sellis@geo-removethisbit-cities.com>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pyrite on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 06:24 AM EST |
As long as we are on history - I was looking for information about ASCII
character codes because I was reading this book about the C programming
language, and I found this webpage:
A Brief History of
Character Codes
The background is rather yellow ( I changed it in my
browser) but it's very interesting reading. There is this paragraph about how
IBM came to be:
Basically, the 1880 census took the US govt. 7 years to
complete (with humans, all by hand). So, for the 1890 census, they employed a
young American inventor by the name of Herman Hollerith, who developed a
punch-card system with "tabulating machines" to automate the census process.
Unlike the previous census, the 1890 Census took 6 weeks, and everyone was very
happy.
This is the paragraph from the webpage:
"As
a result of the success of his tabulating machine at the U.S. Census Bureau,
Hollerith decided to commercialize it. In 1896, he set up a company to market
his invention, which, not surprisingly, he called the Tabulating Machine Co. In
1911, The Tabulating Machine Co. merged with the Computing Scale Co. of America
and International Time Recording Co. to become the
Computing-Tabulating-Recording Co., or C-T-R for short. After penetrating
markets on several continents and setting up business operations on a global
scale, the Computer-Tabulating-Recording Co. changed its name in 1924 to
International Business Machines Corporation. Naturally, because Hollerith's
character code and the punched card became core technologies of the company that
was to dominate computing into the 1970s, they were destined to become widely
used for data representation until 1960s, when IBM developed yet another
character code for its mainframe computers."
Wow. Pretty Cool.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 06:41 AM EST |
Here's a disturbing thought.
Could SCO and their lawyers be crazy enough to try to use
the DMCA against Linux users? They could send takedown
notices to places like kernel.org to try to suppress us.
Granted, they'd be crucified in court, but if done against
a few small-time operations, they might coerce them into
taking the kernel down and/or paying a settlement just to
avoid an expensive legal battle. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: David Gerard on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 06:57 AM EST |
| The Inquirer sends its own Open Letter to
SCO. *splutter* [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 07:16 AM EST |
i don't think we should forget the aim benchmarks. they are a good example of
non-linux code that sco (of their own free will) chose to gpl:
http://www.caldera.com/developers/community/contrib/aim.html
there, they took software that was under another proprietary license (right?)
and did just the thing they propose to hate, they transfered it to gpl.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- more on aim - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 07:22 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 07:46 AM EST |
(Google is your friend...)
Kevin McBride exists and has
contributed to Linux related mail lists in the past (usually using a yahoo
account.) Although the names are similar I can't find any evidence of a family
relationship (though Google will return an address and phone number for
a Kevin McBride in Utah.)
Dean Zimmerman appears to be a technical
writer for Caldera (and now SCO?) He once wrote the
following...
"Unofficial" but validated e-mail from Dean
Zimmerman, OpenLinux
Workstation Product Manager:
All,
You might be interested
to learn that we are planning to have the ISO
images (That's the CD-ROM images)
of the OpenLinux Workstation and
OpenLinux Server products available for free
download. The images
will be available off the Caldera Web Store, and will be
freely
available as a free download on a single user,
non-commercial
license.
The RPMs and SRPMs are currently available
at
ftp://ftp.calderasystems.com/pub/OpenLinux3.l, and have been for
some
time.
OpenLinux Workstation will also be available for download through a
link
inside the Developer's Lounge.
Making our Linux products available for free
download has always been
part of the Caldera policy. It is unfortunate that we
were unable
to make these downloads available at the time the products
were
announced. We want to encourage the download of these products
by
developers and our friends in the Open Source community.
Because of the
national holiday in the United States, I don't think
we'll be able to post these
images for download until next week,
though it is our intention to announce
their availability as soon as
they are posted.
thanx
deanz
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 07:59 AM EST |
| What would that mean? If you mean to ask whether, by publishing it on a
website, the original author has forfeit his copyright, then I'd guess certainly
not.
I think that the other poster was correct in posting just
excerpts.
Were there any copyrights on the document? What license
accompanied the reading of it? It was a public release meant for public
dissemenation. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 08:10 AM EST |
The SCO Group Will Now Report Fiscal 2003 Earnings on December 22, 2003
Friday December 5, 8:01 am ET
Additional Time Will Enable the Company to Finalize the Accounting Treatment for
Its Recent Series A Preferred Stock Transaction
No Impact Expected on Fiscal Year 2003 Revenue or Cash Balance
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031205/laf021_1.html
LINDON, Utah, Dec. 5 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX
- News), a leading provider of Unix based solutions, announced today that its
earnings release and investor conference call previously scheduled for December
8, 2003 at 9:00 am Mountain Standard Time, will be moved to December 22, 2003 at
9:00 am Mountain Standard Time in order for the Company to finalize the
accounting treatment for its recent $50 million Series A Convertible Preferred
Stock transaction. The Company is in the process of performing a valuation of
the conversion feature associated with the Series A Convertible Preferred Stock.
The Company will utilize the services of an outside advisor to assist the
Company in its valuation of the conversion feature.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dodger on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 08:20 AM EST |
Dear Darl,
When you say:
"SCO asserts that the GPL, under which Linux is distributed, violates the
United States Constitution and the U.S. copyright and patent laws.
Constitutional authority to enact patent and copyright laws was granted to
Congress by the Founding Fathers under Article I, § 8 of the United States
Constitution:"
you forgot to say that you are using the GPL to distribute your Linux and you
are using the GPL to offer Samba and other product offerings which enhance your
own (dated) software.
Why would you attack the licensing program that you are using? Or are you saying
that you will drop Samba and the other offerings because they ethically offend
your sense of right and wrong?
And why do you bring in the constitution of the united states? As you will find
out in court, the GPL does not contradict any aspect of the constitution nor
does it abuse copyright law. It is very patriotic of you to evoke the
constitution, founding fathers, god, country and flag. (it's not even the 4th
of July!) Thank you for that. However, if it is unconstitutional, then you are
breaking those laws by distributing under the GPL. That makes you a crook in
your eyes.
When you say:
"In taking this position SCO has been attacked by the Free Software
Foundation, Red Hat and many software developers who support their efforts to
eliminate software patents and copyrights."
You must mean that you are attacking the GPL, Red Hat, the Linux community, IBM
and everybody else under the sun. They are not attacking you. You initiated this
whole farce (remember?). It is always the pot that calls the kettle black.
Actually your argument is that someone <i>must</i> be stealing from
you, because your sales are going down and there is a better, 'free' product
out there that runs circles around your own. You have no proof of violations.
You only have accusations. You wimper to the courts that IBM has not provided
you with the proof that someone is stealing from you.
You need to learn to die,
gracefully.
Love,
a friend (of Linux)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rongage on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 08:26 AM EST |
Ok, I don't get this "take the GPL released software and make it public
domain" bit that some think SCO is trying to do. Can someone explain it to me,
please???
In my view, getting the software declared public domain would
be even worse for SCO as it would allow ANYONE to use the software
without any restrictions.
Why then would we even bother with "brand SCO
of Linux" when the equally available "brand free of Linux" would also be
legit.
You can't narrowly define public as it then becomes a
contradiction in terms. ---
Ron Gage - Linux Consultant
LPI1,
MCP, A+, NET+
Pontiac, Michigan [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: vc on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 08:32 AM EST |
Quote from the article:
"The GPL is not against making money."
The recipients of GPL'd software can give it away for no money, and GPL won't
let the author stop them from doing this. If one wants to sell one's software
(and not just support), GPL is not a good license to use.
Charity is of course perfectly legal, even when it hurts McBride's business
(This is not to say that McBride has a profitable business, or that GPL'd
software hurt it).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: apessos on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 08:33 AM EST |
Could we have expected anything else from SCO? They need to maintain this
facade of the GPL being against copyright laws. I find it curious in their open
letter that they spend a good amount of time explaining the rulings behind
Eldred vs. Ashcroft case, but little time trying to dismantle the GPL. Like
they could. To me it sounded like this:
SCO: "The GPL is bad. Now
look at all these pretty pictures. And in summary the GPL is bad."
The
GPL has never been against money. Not anymore than the free exchange of ideas
is. And if that's the case we should all stop talking now for fear that someone
might take one of our precious ideas and profit from it.
I see the GPL
as the foundation from which one can create new and better code. Instead of
spending time reinventing the wheel, you just need to understand how the wheel
works. From there you can add whatever you want to it, within the terms of the
GPL.
I can't see that exchange working too well in a closed system.
Actually, by nature of a closed system, it shouldn't work like that at all.
They keep their IP to themselves. No sharing, period. Fine, great. On the
flipside, the GPL allows the sharing of code with some restrictions. If you
beleive SCO, there's something very wrong with that. Oh, and copyright
protection should benefit those that seek profit, instead of those that want to
freely exchange ideas and collaborate.
I think the beauty of copyrights
is that you have the freedom to do both.
"If nature had made any one
thing less susceptible that all others of exclusive property, it is the action
of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively
possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it
forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot
dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possess
the less, because every other possess the whole of it. He who receives an idea
from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lites
his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should be
freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual
instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been
peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire,
expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and
like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable
of confinement, or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature,
be a subject of property." - Thomas Jefferson[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 08:34 AM EST |
I guess they've been bombarded with people willing to buy SCO Linux Licenses so
much they have to re-schedule their earnings report.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031205/laf021_1.html
I wonder what today's decision will have on their bottom line.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jrc on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 09:02 AM EST |
Darl's manifesto cites Eldred v. Ashcroft as the source of a legal theory
that profit is the engine of innovation. After a quick Google search, the phrase
seems to appear first in a 1992 case of a publisher's association v. Texaco,
under Judge Leval, in which publishers win on the assertion that Texaco's
scientists cannot make free copies of scientific articles and have it qualify
under fair use (though IANAL and probably missed some subtleties of the
case):
begin quote:
'Finally, Texaco's argument
seeks to undermine the publishers' legitimacy in seeking compensation for
photocopying by reason of their substantial profits. This argument is both
unfounded in fact and wrong as a matter of copyright law. Notwithstanding the
evidence of the current prosperity of Academic Press, Texaco has certainly not
shown that the publication of scientific materials is a business that commands
excessive profits. To the contrary, plaintiffs have shown that the publication
of scientific journals requires a large investment and a long period of losses
endured in the hope of reaching eventual profitability. Furthermore, Texaco's
attempt to deprecate the interest of the copyright owner by reason of profits it
has realized through its copyrights is directly contrary to the theory on which
the copyright law is premised. The copyright law celebrates the profit
motive, recognizing that the incentive to profit from the exploitation of
copyrights will redound to the public benefit by resulting in the proliferation
of knowledge.. The profit motive is the engine that ensures the progress of
science. The principle is admirably demonstrated by the facts of this case.
Through its ability to profit from its exclusive rights over the works assigned
to it, Academic Press has expanded its range so that it publishes 105
scientific. medical and technical journals. The result is the progress of
science; the means is the profit motive. which is underwritten by the law of
copyright. Texaco's demagogic effort to undermine the publishers' rights by
tarring them as wealthy profiteers (*) carries no force in copyright analysis,
which does not begrudge copyright
profits.'
endquote
url: http://www
.ipa-uie.org/copyright/copyright_pub/baumgarten.html
Here's SCO's quote
from the manifesto:
Justice Stevens' characterization of reward
to the author as “a secondary consideration” of copyright law … understates the
relationship between such rewards and the relationship between such rewards and
the “Progress of Science.” As we have explained, “[t]he economic philosophy
behind the [Copyright [C]lause … is the conviction that encouragement of
individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance public welfare
through the talents of authors and inventors.” … Accordingly, “copyright law
celebrates the profit motive, recognizing that the incentive to profit from the
exploitation of copyrights will redound to the public benefit by resulting in
the proliferation of knowledge…. The profit motive is the engine that ensures
the progress of science.”… Rewarding authors for their creative labor and
“promot [ing] … Progress” are thus complementary; as James Madison observed, in
copyright “[t]he public good fully coincides … with the claims of individuals.”
The Federalist No. 43, p. 272 (D. Rossiter ed.1961.) Justice Breyer's assertion
that “copyright statutes must serve public, not private, ends” … similarly
misses the mark. The two ends are not mutually exclusive; copyright law serves
public ends by providing individuals with an incentive to pursue private
ones.
123 S.Ct. at 785, fn. 18; emphasis in original.
Judge Leval goes on to explain that Texaco is using the
knowledge for commercial gain. I wonder what would happen if the defendant had
been a non-profit...
Also, I find it interesting that the copyright
here is not limited to protecting profit, but simply does not "begrudge" profits
from copyrighted works. It seems to be that the decision leaves open the
possibility that copyright can drive progress through means other than profit,
such as the free and open distribution of scientific ideas.
Can anyone
look up Eldred v. Ashcroft and contextualize the decision in terms of this
Texaco case? IANAL and IANAP (paralegal). I'm curious if SCO's citation of the
US Supreme Court is once again taken out of context of the history of case
law... ---
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 09:05 AM EST |
This being the christmas season, I just could not take this
latest little rant from little Darl and his little company
and little lawyers very seriously. But clearly, we have a
winner for this year's christmas play tryouts for "Mr
Scrooge". Perhaps it will be interesting to watch the
scene where he is visited Christmas eve by the three
subpenas of lawsuits past, present, and future....
Darl is a little man. It is not that he is short in
stature, just that he is little. He would aspire to take
down giants who's boots he is not even fit to clean, but in
the end, all he will be is littler than before...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 09:28 AM EST |
I am from Utah. I can tell you that I at least learned a few things about
American History.
So go easy on Utah.
But please continue to beat the snot out of SCO.
I am embarresed that they are located in my home state.
Those who fail to learn from History are destined to repeat it.
Thanks for Groklaw.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 09:30 AM EST |
| Just a little refresher course for those poor folks in Utah, who don't know a
thing about the history of America
HEY! C'mon now, don't make fun of the
rest of us just because we have one asshole living in our state... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: WhiteFang on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 09:41 AM EST |
"Go boil your head."
www.theinquirer.net/?article=13052[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cc on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 09:52 AM EST |
Incredible!
I was expecting a word-by-word refutation of Darl's manifesto. But this goes
so far beyond that as to not only cut off the branch that Darl is sitting on,
but uproots the whole tree!
It is good to be reminded that the founders of our country had guts -- the likes
of which you don't see much of these days.
I think it is absolutely appropriate that in an age where oppression and control
is now being applied successfully in the digital realm, that a new breed of
digital rebels should take inspiration from our founding fathers.
Let freedom ring!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 09:52 AM EST |
Maybe it's time for a Lindon Tea Party, where SCO headquarters is burned to the
ground, and its board of directors and legal counselers tarred, feathered, and
ridden out of town on a rail. <g>
Now that's an old American custom that Darryl would appreciate![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 10:15 AM EST |
"you know somebody wants to do harm to somebody and get away with it, for
their own profit. And so it proved to be, and in that sense, I think you could
argue that America was born in a spirit of rebellion against unjust
profits"
Brilliant piece of report and analysis. It is simply incredible that SCO has
managed to create the magnitude of havoc in the industry. They are enjoying it
and betting their crime will pay. And so it seems the court of law ishelpless in
face of this cunning devil's advocate.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pooky on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 10:18 AM EST |
Okay, let’s nip this “GPL is unconstitutional” argument in the bud once and for
all. The GPL by definition cannot be unconstitutional for the following
reasons:
1) Just because SCOG says it’s so doesn’t make it so.
2) The GPL is not a contract with the government nor does it involve the
government in any way. The term “unconstitutional”, as I understand it, can
only be applied to the actions of the government.
3) The GPL is a contract between one or more parties. It is entered into
voluntarily; no one “forces” you to accept the terms. If you do not accept the
terms laid down in the GPL, then don’t use the licensed software. It’s that
simple. A contract between parties in which all agree upon the terms cannot
even be deemed illegal unless the contract itself enforces a provision that is
criminal (ie. says you must steal something, etc…)
The GPL is also not contrary to US or European copyright laws. Despite the fact
the FSF crafted this license very carefully and so that it would be enforceable
under the laws of most of the western world, Darl McBride seems to think
otherwise.
1) The GPL is a contract, just like any other software license. It lays out the
terms under which GPL licensed software may be used, modified, and distributed.
It also protects the licensors and notifies the licensee of the copyrights
contained within the licensed product.
2) As stated above, acceptance of this contract, like any other software
license, is voluntary. This is precisely in line with every other software
license’s applicability under US Copyright law.
Now since IANAL, I’m sure there are some holes in this thinking, I do not claim
to understand US Copyright law in it’s entirety, however the above would seem
reasonable. Anyone care to shoot holes in my view?
-pooky
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 11:01 AM EST |
I get this feeling that Darl is reacting like a cornered animal. Trapped,
helpless, panicked and gnashing his teeth at anything in order to get out.
He might just wet himself soon...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 11:30 AM EST |
I have a quote from 50 years ago, I think it applies to SCO's attack on Linux,
BSD, open source, GPL etc...
: They came first for the Communists..
: but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
: Then they came for the Jews...
: but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
: Then they came for the Unionists...
: but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Unionist.
: Then they came for the Catholic...
: but I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
: Then they came for me...
: and by that time...
: there was no-one left to speak up for me.
: Rev. Martin Niemoller, commenting on events in Germany 1933-1939
We should all write our congressmen and ask for SEC oversite into SCO, and more
penalties for fraud.
SCO has awakened a sleeping giant...
---
Norman Madden
Chuluota, FL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: shaun on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 11:45 AM EST |
Will Groklaw be responding to this "Open Letter" as we did the last
one? Though I'm not sure the effort would be useful in this sense. Darl's
"writers" really made a huge goof and I do believe they nailed their
own coffin shut here.
--Shaun
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 11:55 AM EST |
| Thanks for taking the time to inform us on the legal aspects of this case, you
provide a great service, so keep up the good work. But ....
"Just a
little refresher course for those poor folks in Utah, who don't know a thing
about the history of America. They don't know a thing about the Constitution,
either, and they never have been able to figure out the GPL."
I'm very
disappointed in this comment. It seams very much in the same vein as "Americans
are warmongers" or "Californians are Nuts" or "people from Mississippi are
Racists." Perhaps you are referring to "poor folks in Utah" as Darl and
company, but since it was prefaced by a sentence in an earlier paragraph with
the comment, "Maybe they don't teach American history in the Utah school
system any more...", and I have not seen you refer to IBM as "the poor
folks from New York," I understand this to be a rude comment against the people
of Utah. True SCO is located in Utah, but that's it... SCO is not
Utah, Darl does not speak for Utah, he is no more a representation of the people
of Utah than Charles Manson is of the people of California. Many people in Utah
feel he's a dishonest south-end of a north-bound donkey. I see these comments
about the people of Utah in lots of SCO related papers and usually ignore them,
but since you mentioned in your Linux Online interview that ... I had in
my mind the "It's the Economy, Stupid" signs, and I was playing on that. I don't
usually call people stupid. I felt I would mention it to you. (By
the way I live in Kansas and have never lived in Utah and most likely never will
but I think it important to avoid stereotypical meanness.) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 11:56 AM EST |
"Maybe they don't teach American history in the Utah school system any
more"
"Just a little refresher course for those poor folks in Utah, who don't
know a thing about the history of America. They don't know a thing about the
Constitution, either, and they never have been able to figure out the
GPL."
I'm a big fan of your research and writing, but I'm getting a bit tired of
your jabs on my state. I would guess SCO has far more enemies than friends
here. Other than a few SCO executives I think you would find most of us
"poor folks in Utah" to be well educated about American history and
very patriotic. We also have many GPL fans among our ranks as well.
Keep up the excellent research; just don't besmirch the reputation of millions
because of the avarice of a few.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 12:01 PM EST |
Superb article, and right to the point. Everyone who is posting notes here
needs to be conveying these ideas in writing to our congress folks and State
assemblies who have forgotten both this country's founding principles AND who
they represent. This is serious business. Congress has either been sold to the
highest bidder or sold a bill of goods (you choose), and EU politicians appear
to be headed down the same garden path. WE need to be doing something about
that. Elections are just around the corner folks. Get off your duffs. If that
doesn't work, remember that freedom must be defended. Might come to another
Tea Party. That's also a Constitutional right.
Good luck to Jon today in Norway where another battle for liberty is being
fought against U.S. idea monopolists. We all have a natural right to use
copyrighted property we have purchased for ANY personal non-infringing purpose
whatsoever.
Frihet[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: amcguinn on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 12:05 PM EST |
| All these have been dug up before, but as SCO's PR moves further away from
alleging any concrete wrongdoing, and depends more heavily
on rants against Free
and Open Source Software in general, quotes
regarding their former attitudes
become more relevant.
Kicking off from a 1999 press
release:
In August of this year SCO announced a comprehensive
set of Linux and Open
Source-related professional services. As a corporate
sponsor of Linux
International, SCO is a strong proponent of the Open Source
movement and
has contributed source code to the Open Source community including
OpenSAR
and lxrun. SCO UnixWare 7 operating system supports Linux applications
as
part of its development platform.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 12:36 PM EST |
Rather interesting thorts.
Perhaps the effect of greed can be turned to good when it can be harnessed to
mechanisms that reward those who invent the inventions AND accelerates the
process of promulgating the widespread adoption of those inventions throughout
society.
Debates between professions are always enlightening, especially when the notion
involves the intrinsic 'relative worth' of say (for example) engineers and
lawyers.
Interesting, Alexandr Isaevich Solzhenitzin emphasized that lawyers and
economists dominated the social political and business landscape in a time
period 1910-1917; immediately preceeding their one 'summer of freedom (1917)'
in Russia.
We all know what began to happen there in 1918 through to the present!!
Solzhenitzin's antidote for the obvious pain endured- introduce many more
physicians and engineers to the decision making fabric earlier in the process.
Those two groups people know both how to reduce pain and work effort, improving
the lot of every citizen quickly.
Those who harness the benefits of computing technologies for the greater good of
a greater number of citizens reducing both effort and pain in work would stand
shoulder to shoulder with doctors of medicine in reducing suffering and pain on
his scale of assigning value to work.
Engineers have already been making (free) choices on critical issues regarding
access to viewing the technologies that relieve the tedium of drudge work and
provide pain relief. Leaving those decisions to lawyers, economists and
lawmakers alone might start us again down a very slippery slope.
Engineers {(and physicians) should be permitted to} rule (more)!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 12:50 PM EST |
I find Darl McBride no better than the book publishers that brought about the
Statute of Anne in 1710:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne
These publishers wanted to decide what books could and couldn't be shown to the
public or rather sold to the public. Therefore eliminated any other books, at
least this is what I understand was what they were doing. If some one else has
more information or I'm wrong, please inform me.
Now Darl McBride wants to be sure to do the same with software. Make sure that
the only people that can control it our companies and for profit. Myself being
but a programmer and a poet. I have not only made money at developing software,
but I've also helped create shareware, freeware and am now producing GPL
software. I chose GPL software because I get great satisfaction from knowing
that I might be able to take what I have learned and pass it on to a new
generation. If McBride has his way there will be no way to provide this type of
donation, except to just give up my ownership of my knowledge. The GPL provides
a way that I can share what I have, but control what I have created. If some one
like McBride misuses it, by law I can take away his right to distribute. This is
why I believe so many people are upset with SCO. The claims of illegally copied
code are minor. That is some thing every programmer knows could be fixed, no
matter how much SCO claims it can't be fixed. If they can put a dollar value on
it, it can be corrected. What really has people in the community upset is that
SCO wants to abolish the GPL. For freedom is what the law has always provided
individuals and SCO is setting out to take away a privilege.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: FrankH on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 01:42 PM EST |
I am English and as such I don't like to be reminded of British defeats.
Therefore, I would like to thank PJ for reminding everybody about the glorious
victory of the British settlers against the German King George and his army of
international mercenaries. ;-)
Well done PJ. I come here looking for the latest on the SCO shenanigans and stay
here for a history lesson. Keep up the good work.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: penfold on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 01:42 PM EST |
This stance against intellectual property laws has been adopted
by several companies in the software industry, most notably Red Hat. Red Hat's
position is that current U.S. intellectual property law “impedes innovation in
software development” and that “software patents are inconsistent with open
source/free software.” Red Hat has aggressively lobbied Congress to eliminate
software patents and copyrights. (see
http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html).
[Emphasis
added]
But if you actually look at the Redhat page, you will see
they are only talking about software patents. There is only one
place on the entire page where copyright is even
mentioned:
Copyright © 2003 Red Hat, Inc. All rights
reserved.
I think it's a bit dangerous for someone to quote
snippets of someone else's copyrighted work, not give them credit for their
copyrighted work, and distribute it under an open letter... and then
accuse RedHat of not respecting an author's copyright.
Granted, I may
be putting too fine a point on here, but "He who lives in glass houses should
not throw stones" especially when lieing to people about the strength of glass
houses and the weakness of stones.
---
I'm not kidding, that boy's
head is like Sputnik; spherical but quite pointy at parts! He'll be crying
himself to sleep tonight, on his huge pillow. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 01:50 PM EST |
For those interested in this thread and the general question of
intellectual
property and the law, I think that Eldred v Ashcroft
(mentioned by
McBride) is a case that is very much worth looking at. In
my opinion, there is
every reason to call the Supreme Court's majority
opinion on this case a sellout
to special interests. But there were two
dissents. Steven's dissent, I think, is
based on technicalities and is
not so interesting - it seems to go mostly to the
issue of whether an
after-the-fact change in term is legal or
not.
Breyer's dissent is much broader and goes into an
in-depth
examination of what intellectual property laws are for,
their
constitutional basis, and what constitutes a reasonable term
for
protection. It is, in my view, a wonderful opinion from the bench,
and
should be required reading for anyone who has a serious interest
in
intellectual property law, and what it means in terms of loss of freedom
that
it can represent when not legislated wisely.
Some time ago, I read the
Breyer opinion, but could only find it in
PDF form. I'm happy to say that it is
now available in HTML as well as
PDF. A link to an HTML version of the Breyer
dissent is http://supct.law.
cornell.edu/supct/html/01-618.ZD1.html, and a link
to the Syllabus for the
case is http://supct.law.c
ornell.edu/supct/html/01-618.ZS.html. Both of
these pages contain links to
the all of the opinions for the case, in
both HTML and PDF formats.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 06:12 PM EST |
I suppose it never occurred to Darl that there are a variety of intangible and
non-monetized ways in which a person can "profit" from their various
endeavors. In the case of open-source, GPL software development, a person can
"profit" from their contributions in a variety of ways, including:
- The personal and professional satisfaction that comes from a job well done.
- The improvement of one's reputation amongst his or her peers.
- The refinement of one's tradecraft.
- The satisfaction that comes from donating one's time, money and resources to
a cause they believe in.
Regards,
Christopher Zarcone
New Jersey
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: linuxix on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 06:19 PM EST |
Nice article. Like any of PJ's articles.
Since the subject of freedom has been brought up: I'm not sure I share
the same opinion about the freedom America and the Americans seem
so proud of. Looking at the news, seeing what laws are being passed, I
continously get the opposite picture forced upon me. Could somebody
tell me where this out of sync situation with the facts comes from?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 09:01 PM EST |
The GPL does NOTHING to stop proprietry companys continuing writing and selling
their software!!
They are at a quality and price disadvantage, sure, but business is business.
They may have to shift their business model to survive
(perhaps selling optional support services, rather than selling programs).
But lots of industries have to change to survive in an ever changing world.
Sometimes they dont survive. Thats Life.
That's not unconstitutional.
I can see a bit of a parallel with the music industry (and the internet) and
this constitution argument. - in that they refuse to change their thinking too.
Anyway as I see it, the many authors are licensing their code under GPL
esentially FREE to end user, thats up to them. They receive their payoff in
other ways. They could look at the value of their contribution as an investment
of time/effort in return for skills/learning and increased employability in a
linux setting. Nothing wrong with that! Who says you have to charge for
software anyway.
Finally that means the only argument left is the 'viral' bit. To which my
simple answer is...
If you dont want to be bound by the GPL then write your own code, from scratch -
it really is simple!
Afterall, if Linux and open source wasnt around, you would have to do that
anyway
- Duh.
Grow up - Its dog eat dog out there boys.
P.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 06 2003 @ 05:55 AM EST |
I have just read, re-read and re-read again the open-letter of Darl McBride. Is
it just me, or could somebody point out where he states specifically what is
unconstitutional about GPL. I couldn't find it! Again he also fails to state
what the similarities are between GPL "failing" and the case study
on offer to hold up his position. I have read repeatedly on this site about the
failure of SCO to state with "specicifity" what is going on, and it
looks like he has done it again.
BTW PJ, he missed the whole point of "free" again![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 06 2003 @ 08:25 AM EST |
Just a point on the Declaratory Act - it's a bit more complicated than you make
out. Basically, the British Parliament believed it had that authority over the
colonies anyway; the colonies believed there was a slightly complex distinction
between areas in which Parliament could make laws binding the American colonies
and areas in which it couldn't, saying the only authority which could bind the
colonies absolutely was the Crown (since the colonies were founded by royal
Letters Patent, not by any act of Parliament). So the Declaratory Act wasn't,
as you imply, setting up some kind of groundwork for some nefarious plan to do
*something* to the colonies which Parliament didn't believe it could do with
its existing powers. It was Parliament's attempt to force the debate on its
level of authority over the colonies - hence the name "Declaratory",
implying a clarification of an existing situation rather than something new.
--
adamw[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
