decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books


Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook


Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

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 ( ). 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 ).

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."


Darl McBride
President & CEO
The SCO Group, Inc.


Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto | 273 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
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
Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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

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 | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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 | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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


[ Reply to This | # ]

Now the Battle is Joined!
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
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

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 | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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
Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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 | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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 | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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 | # ]

I would not like ...
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 | # ]

Not Just an American Fight
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

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 | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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 | # ]

Good history reminder
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 | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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 | # ]

someone needs to warn
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
i wonder if my mind will ever think normally again
it is so contaminated with scospeak weasel thoughts


[ Reply to This | # ]

They _still_ don't get the GPL
Authored by: Dan M on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 12:05 AM EST


[ Reply to This | # ]

Wow! I agree with darl
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 | # ]

Linus Speaks Out on Darl Blather
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 | # ]

Those who the Gods destroy they first make mad...
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

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

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
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 | # ]

Darl's "Don Quixote" Manifesto
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 | # ]

Compensation is implied by the GPL
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 | # ]

This trash was written by Boies...
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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Here's a Utah dude that knows a thing or two about American history
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 | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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.


Destroying SCO one bozon at a time

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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 C. Knutson
Attorney at Law

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 | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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!!!

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 | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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 | # ]

Long Live
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 01:14 AM EST
Now I know what happened to all the folks from 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
You have it all wrong PJ
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

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.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Well, now we know
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 | # ]

No profit? Are you mad?
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

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 | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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 | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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 | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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.


[ Reply to This | # ]

If someone's going to the court house today...
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.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl's next letter.
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 | # ]

Darl McBride - Greatest IP Priate of All Time
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 | # ]

Side tracks and non-legal legal arguments
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

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

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

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 | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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,

"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

Benjamin Franklin "

[ Reply to This | # ]

Acceptance of the GPL
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 | # ]

Darl to 'invade Poland'
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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Things that are unconstitutional
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 | # ]

Copyright and the Constitution
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 | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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 | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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
$2.05 billion: Total revenue from sales of Linux servers in 2002, up 63 percent
from 2001.
(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 | # ]

GPL analogy: UPenn and the Library Building
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 | # ]

This is a setup
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 | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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.


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 | # ]

"There are no U.S. tanks in Bagdad."
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 | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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

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

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 <>

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM tidbit I accidentally found
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 | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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 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 | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
Authored by: David Gerard on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 06:57 AM EST
The Inquirer sends its own Open Letter to SCO.


[ Reply to This | # ]

sco using gpl
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:

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
Kevin and Dean
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:


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
available as a free download on a single user,

The RPMs and SRPMs are currently available
at, and have been for

OpenLinux Workstation will also be available for download through a
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
announced.  We want to encourage the download of these products
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.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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 | # ]

NEWS: SCO postpones financial disclosure
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

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 | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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

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,


a friend (of Linux)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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
Pontiac, Michigan

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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 | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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 | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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.

I wonder what today's decision will have on their bottom line.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Source of "Profit is Engine of Innovation"
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.'
url: http://www

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 | # ]

Your a mean one, Mr. McBride
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 | # ]

Go easy on Utah, Hard on SCO
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 | # ]

INQUIRER sends Open Letter to SCO
Authored by: WhiteFang on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 09:41 AM EST
"Go boil your head."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
Authored by: cc on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 09:52 AM EST

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 | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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 | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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

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 | # ]

The GPL is NOT unconstituional, get a clue...
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

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

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?


[ 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 | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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 | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Collateral Damage?
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 | # ]

references to Utah
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
"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

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 | # ]

Serious Business
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


[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO on Open Source
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 | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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

Debates between professions are always enlightening, especially when the notion
involves the intrinsic 'relative worth' of say (for example) engineers and

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 | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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:

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 | # ]

Another British Military Victory
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 | # ]

Did they even read the Redhat page?
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 [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 | # ]

Breyer's dissent in Eldred v Ashcroft should be required reading
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, and a link to the Syllabus for the case is Both of these pages contain links to the all of the opinions for the case, in both HTML and PDF formats.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Motivations Other Than Money
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.


Christopher Zarcone
New Jersey

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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 | # ]

Darl's "Greed is Good" Manifesto
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

- Duh.

Grow up - Its dog eat dog out there boys.


[ Reply to This | # ]

No details AGAIN
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 | # ]

Declaratory Act
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.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )