|
|
| "GrokLaw: MVP of the SCO Wars" - Clay Shirky |
 |
|
Wednesday, December 17 2003 @ 05:08 PM EST
|
NEC, Clay Shirky's distribution list on Networks, Economics & Culture, this month
wrote about Groklaw. He listed it in his Worth Reading Section, and he calls Groklaw "the MVP of the SCO Wars". He releases this newsletter under the Creative Commons License, so I am happy to be able to share the whole section with you. You might also like to know about his weblog Corante, which reports tech news. Mr. Shirky's bio tells us this: "Mr. Shirky divides his time between consulting, teaching, and writing on the social and economic effects of Internet technologies. His consulting practice is focused on the rise of decentralized technologies such as peer-to-peer, web services, and wireless networks that provide alternatives to the wired client/server infrastructure that characterizes the Web. Current clients include Nokia, GBN, the Library of Congress, the Highlands Forum, the Markle Foundation, and the BBC.
"In addition to his consulting work, Mr. Shirky is an adjunct professor in NYU's graduate Interactive Telecommunications Program (ITP), where he teaches courses on the interrelated effects of social and technological network topology -- how our networks shape culture and vice-versa. His current course, Social Weather, examines the cues we use to understand group dynamics in online spaces and the possible ways of improving user interaction by redesigning our social software to better reflect the emergent properties of groups.
"Mr. Shirky has written extensively about the internet since 1996. Over the years, he has had regular columns in Business 2.0, FEED, OpenP2P.com and ACM Net_Worker, and his writings have appeared in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Harvard Business Review, Wired, Release 1.0, Computerworld, and IEEE Computer. He has been interviewed by Slashdot, Red Herring, Media Life, and the Economist's Ebusiness Forum. He has written about biotechnology in his "After Darwin" column in FEED magazine, and serves as a technical reviewer for O'Reilly's bioinformatics series. He helps program the "Biological Models of Computation" track for O'Reilly's Emerging Technology conferences." Actually, there is quite a bit more, this being only the first three paragraphs. Here is what he had to say in the December 17th edition of NEC about what Groklaw has accomplished:
*****************************************
Worth Reading . . . .
GrokLaw: MVP of the SCO Wars
My colleague Elizabeth Lawley of RIT has convinced me that one of the
most profound effects of weblogs is the communal workings of those who
publish them, and that they contribute significant new value to
collaboration across disciplines and boundaries.
And now that she's convinced me, I see the pattern everywhere. The Dean
campaign piece I posted earlier today exhibits much of that pattern, and
so does today's Groklaw piece on SCO. By way of background, SCO, once a
technology company, has become a company devoted to a single legal
strategy:
1. Assert rights to the Unix operating system
2. Assert infringing contributions of Unix source code to Linux
3. Sue firms that sell or use Linux, especially deep-pocketed IBM
4. Profit!!!1! (or at least buyout by IBM, to save them the expense of
the suit.)
Much of the matter is in dispute, and IANAL, but what is clear is this:
a) many SCO employees contributed to the Linux kernel, back when SCO was
a tech company ("oldSCO"), with the approval of their bosses, and b) the
Groklaw is doing an astonishing, world-changing job of finding,
documenting and publicizing these occurrences (alongside much other work
on the case.)
A recent GrokLaw entry reads:
Groklaw has reported before on contributions made to the Linux kernel
by Christoph Hellwig while he was a Caldera employee. We have also
offered some evidence of contributions by oldSCO employees as well.
Alex Rosten decided to do some more digging about the contributions of
one kernel coder, Tigran Aivazian.
[...]
This paper is a group effort. Alex's research was shared with others
in the Groklaw community, who honed, edited, and added further
research. Then the final draft was sent to Tigran himself, so he
could correct and/or amplify, which he has done.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031210111235600
Look at that second graf: "This paper is a group effort." Everyone
always says that about complex work, but this is different. This is the
end of two-party law, where plaintiff and defendant duke it out in an
arms race of $350/hr laywers and "Take that" counter-motions.
Instead, we have a third party, Groklaw, acting as a proxy for millions
of Linux users, affecting the public perception of the case (and the
outcome SCO wants has to do with its stock price, not redress in the
courts.) Groklaw may also be affecting the case in the courts, by
helping IBM with a distributed discovery effort that they, IBM, could
never accomplish on their own, no matter how may lawyers they throw at
it.
There are two ways to change the amount of leverage you have. The
obvious one is to put more force on the lever, and this is what SCO
thought they were doing -- engaging IBM in a teeter-totter battle that
would make it cheaper for IBM to simply buy SCO than to fight it out in
the courts.
The other way to get more leverage is to move the fulcrum. Groklaw has
moved the fulcrum of this battle considerably closer to SCO, making it
easier for IBM to exert leverage, and harder for SCO to. I can't predict
how the current conflict will end, but the pattern Groklaw has
established, of acting on behalf of the people who will be adversely
affected by a two-party legal battle, has already been vindicated, even
if SCO avoids bankruptcy.
====================================================================
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License.
The licensor permits others to copy, distribute, display, and perform
the work. In return, licensees must give the original author credit.
To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0
or send a letter to
Creative Commons, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California 94305, USA.
2003, Clay Shirky
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: chris hill on Wednesday, December 17 2003 @ 05:45 PM EST |
To be honest, everyone here has changed the way regular people think about
research.
This site is more than just a place to look for news, it's an inspiration to
those of us "old timers" who remember working with IBM's SNA, and
how we used to wish for just this capacity.
Congradulations to everyone, especially PJ for starting this.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: egan on Wednesday, December 17 2003 @ 05:45 PM EST |
Clay Shirky is way cool. This is awesome validation, PJ.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Really - Authored by: Ruidh on Wednesday, December 17 2003 @ 08:52 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Wednesday, December 17 2003 @ 05:46 PM EST |
that is so awesome that we are being noticed by more than just tech industries
WTG PJ
-:)
br3n
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Stumbles on Wednesday, December 17 2003 @ 05:49 PM EST |
That's a nice piece and it's great that Groklaw is being recognized for
the outstanding service it provides. I bet PJ never thought it would
turn out this way.
I don't post here much, mostly lurking because there are many here
that are way more eloquent and reasoned than I.
I just want to say thanks to PJ for such a great site and to all those
who have posted such indepth and articulate responses to the
amazing research going on here. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rkrishnam_can01 on Wednesday, December 17 2003 @ 05:57 PM EST |
Hats off PJ!!! A well deserved praise for leading the effort.
Regards
Raja[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: skozombie on Wednesday, December 17 2003 @ 06:05 PM EST |
| PJ,
We already know how much effort you put in, and we appreciate it
immensely. We would hope that you'd know that :)
However, to have an article
written like this about your great site is further evidence that you're
performing an invaluable service to the greater internet community! Keep up the
great work, I'm glad they are finally noticing the effort!
-Andrew [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: penfold on Wednesday, December 17 2003 @ 06:13 PM EST |
An article at
The Register has a story about SCO not attending a Linux Show.
Too bad,
it would have been interesting to see them in a booth wedged between IBM and Red
Hat. :)
---
I'm not kidding, that boy's head is like Sputnik;
spherical but quite pointy at parts! He'll be crying himself to sleep tonight,
on his huge pillow. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ted Powell on Wednesday, December 17 2003 @ 06:24 PM EST |
While reading comments like
If
discrediting Groklaw is their
goal, then this article is likely to backfire on
Forbes. By pointing us out,
they are bringing people to the site to see it for
themselves and the evidence
stands on its own.
I was thinking that there should be
something on the Groklaw home page with a Welcome New Readers flavour.
Then I thought, "Didn't PJ just say she was getting overloaded? That would take
time to write!"
Then I fetched the home page to see what was there, and
the Clay Shirky article popped up.
In the normal course of events, this
article will disappear from the home page in a few days. But perhaps a link to
it should be kept there, with a caption encouraging new readers to look at it
first.
---
Truth is not determined by majority vote. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RSC on Wednesday, December 17 2003 @ 06:38 PM EST |
Can't say much more than what has already been said.
Great work PJ and all the other groklawers
lets all keep pushing that fulcrum ;-)
RSC
---
----
An Australian who IS interested.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Flower on Wednesday, December 17 2003 @ 06:41 PM EST |
| Hey, have we submitted Groklaw
for a Webby? If not, I
recommend doing so and soon. Deadline for submission is the 19th. ---
Teach
it phenomenology. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wynot Grokmore on Wednesday, December 17 2003 @ 07:20 PM EST |
It has been less than a year since this thing started, and yet already I shudder
to imagine the poverty of a world without Groklaw. Amazing, just amazing.
Thank you PJ!
Wynot [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tyche on Wednesday, December 17 2003 @ 07:23 PM EST |
Bravo Clay Shirky and Bravo Pamela Jones!
Craig
(Tyche)
---
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of
knowledge."
Stephen Hawking[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: surak on Wednesday, December 17 2003 @ 07:43 PM EST |
Clay Shirkey is right on the money.
Groklaw is a valuable asset to the Linux community and has
helped to clear up many, many misconceptions in this case
for those, unlike myself or some of the others on Groklaw,
haven't been using and hacking Linux since the early
beginnings, and even those who have who aren't all that
technically or legally adept. The press is taking notice,
the world is taking notice.
PJ started this thing from humble beginnings and has
turned it into a world-class "open source paralegal
research site". Or something like that. ;)
Great work, PJ, Alex, MathFox, everyone involved, everyone
who's contributed. Here's to hoping that Groklaw keeps
going, even after the SCO case is over. There's a lot of
bright people here and maybe, just maybe, Groklaw can
continue to make a difference in the world for years to
come. I know it already has! ;)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: p0ssum on Wednesday, December 17 2003 @ 07:57 PM EST |
but its nice to see it in print.
PJ I hope you were able to enjoy a nice glass of wine for your
accomplishments. The effort you have put into this site has been herculean and
it has been an honor to be a part of it.
Enjoy the accolades, you're doing a great job.
Paul
---
There are 10 types of people in this world, those that understand binary and
those that do not.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Beyonder on Wednesday, December 17 2003 @ 08:29 PM EST |
anyone know why their stock jumped 10% today (ok, 9.99%) same diff. ??
anything happen, or are their investors overjoyed about the attacks being
"real" or some such nonsense?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Wednesday, December 17 2003 @ 09:23 PM EST |
This is really neat. PJ deserves a ton of credit, as do all who have done
research, pointed out errors, and just made comments about the articles.
Has Groklaw made a difference? I don't know if any of the main participants
(IBM, SCO, Redhat, the lawyers, or the judges) have made a statement on this
(though I know what I think). I do know that Groklaw has empowered the
community, has acted as a source of news, training on internet research, and
become a very nice place to hang out.
Groklaw has been my home page for a couple of months now at home, and I
typically check it two or three times a day at work as well.
Wayne
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 17 2003 @ 09:53 PM EST |
According to this page, they offer SCO Linux.
http://yahoo.investor.reuters.com/FullDesc.aspx?target=/stocks/quickinfo/company
profile/fulldescription&ticker=scox
Now this page must have been revised after July 2003, as it mentions Vultus.
Meanwhile, SCO had pupported to stop Linux distribution around May of this
year.
Now the link above is an expanded version of the business info announcing their
conference call
http://biz.yahoo.com/cc/4/36984.html
Now I'm not sure if SCO themselves provided this info, but if they did it
suggests one or more of the following:
1. They still sell Linux and have been.
or
2. They are about to start offering Linux again (maybe with a buy it from us and
avoid litigation if you buy that nasty IBM/RedHat/SuSE/etc)
or
3. The description is fekked up
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pooky on Wednesday, December 17 2003 @ 10:27 PM EST |
Great job PJ, keep up the good work, people are noticing the difference groklaw
is making!
-pooky
---
IANAL, etc...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Aerie on Wednesday, December 17 2003 @ 10:43 PM EST |
"We've" always known what an amazing site this is, now we're
starting to see "they" recognize that as well.
Rather reminds me of the early days of Linux, when people were just starting to
take it seriously outside of the hacker community.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uzdav on Wednesday, December 17 2003 @ 11:24 PM EST |
Well deserved. Groklaw is a very professional site that is unparalled in nearly
every way. What other site has such community and investigative insights, for
any topic? The praise in such an article should come as no surprise to anyone
familiar with Groklaw, but it's great to continue getting external exposure in
new areas.
I'm curious, though. When the SCO ordeal is over, what happens to Groklaw?
What'll the new topic be, or will it be time to bow out by then?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 17 2003 @ 11:32 PM EST |
No doubt SCO will issue a press release claiming to own it within
the next few hours....
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: LinuxLobbyist on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 12:26 AM EST |
This is the end of two-party law, where plaintiff and defendant
duke it out in an arms race of $350/hr laywers and "Take that"
counter-motions.
I said something very similar to a friend
a few days ago. Basically, we've all seen how unjust the justice system can be
at times. It might only be perception; i.e., maybe it's only the egregious
mistakes (in our view) that are the ones that get publicized.
But
Groklaw is having an impact. To me Groklaw is a something to point at
and say to those involved in battling it out in court (lawyers, plaintiffs,
defendants, judges, and juries) that we are watching you. If you are abusing
our legal system you will be exposed. Our legal system -- all of the
people involved -- is now on notice.
---
Local Linux Lobbyist
Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux.
GPL all the way: Sell services,
don't lease secrets [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: miss_cleo_psy4u on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 12:43 AM EST |
Yahoo! Finance is showing the 4th Quarter Conference Call for
SCO as set
fo:r
4AM EST December 22, 2003!
SCO Finance
Live Call.
Set your alarm clocks but keep monitoring for possible
changes in
conference call times.
Are enough transcribers ready and waiting?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Time Correction - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 02:09 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: RealProgrammer on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 01:04 AM EST |
I submitted this as a story, but it didn't make the cut, I, guess. Yahoo is
linking a forbes.com piece named Revenge
of the Nerds(Dec 16, 2003). As I submit this, Forbes appears to be down
(server 500 error). There is a comments link at the end of the story, and here
is what I submitted:
Our culture today has distrust of anger. An angry
person is suspect.
It doesn't matter what the circumstances are; lose your cool
and your
arguments are discounted, even negated.
Wise heads in the
Linux community have been warning others to control
their indignation concerning
SCO. The article 'Revenge of the Nerds',
forbes.com, Dec 16 2003, quotes Bruce
Perens: "People are seeing
something going on that they really consider evil
[...] These people
are just showing moral outrage."
From my limited
interaction with Mr Perens, I don't believe his
statement was meant to justify
any harassment of reporters or analysts
in the SCO controversy. Nor would Mr.
Perens condone criminal or even
rude behavior directed at SCO or any other
group. He was explaining
that emotions run high for Linux users.
Our
cultural bias notwithstanding, anger is an appropriate response in
some
circumstances. Injustice breeds anger. Allowing that anger to
prompt one to
action and the particular action one takes are separate
issues, but the anger
can be entirely appopriate.
When one sees a bully on a playground, a
righteous anger is appropriate.
When dictators abuse their citizens, anger
rises. When a failing company
uses criminal deceit to manipulate the press and
the court system for the
greedy purposes of its own executives, there is going
to be anger.
I can prove every word in the foregoing sentence concerning SCO,
but
the point is that the Linux community already believes it to be
true.
The article gave several examples of zealous Linux users failing
to
control their indignation. It appeared to cast them all as ignorant
hotheads
acting as an unruly online mob. While "unruly" certainly fits,
the issues of
the case are complex enough that few people fully
understand it. To imply that
those interested in its outcome but not
fully versed in the nuances of
peripheral issues such as "preference
trades" are mere pawns manipulated by
businesses allied against SCO is
editorially shameful.
The article
mentions that Pamela Jones of groklaw.com questioned whether
SCO's recent Denial
of Service attacks were self-inflicted. The
Forbes article failed to mention,
however, that all technical evidence
at the time appeared to support her
suspicion. Many people
simultaneously and independently came to the same
conclusion. When
independent experts reported that the attack could have been
real,
she made an immediate public retraction.
The Forbes article also
fails to note that Ms. Jones called on members
of the Linux community not just
to stop attacking SCO, if any of them
were even doing so, but to actively assist
SCO in protecting itself,
just as they would any other Linux user or group who
asked.
The Linux community feels moral outrage at the conduct of SCO
and
its treatment in the business press, but some are stepping up and
showing
leadership. The Forbes article paints the picture of an unruly mob
whipped up by partisans for their own advantage. There is no conspiracy,
no
dark plan to keep SCO from any rightful return on their assets.
There are only
people who see an injustice and want it righted.
Loren Heal
Champaign,
IL
---
(I'm not a lawyer, but I am a literate citizen) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 01:05 AM EST |
Hi,
just a side note: The RH timeline has not been updated since
quite some time. I would personally assume that this case
becomes more interesting now, if SCO will indeed be allowed
to present its list of asserted infringements under
disclosure. What is happening to the case?
Jochen
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Peter Smith on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 03:22 AM EST |
Reading the Forbes article 'Revenge of the Nerds' brings home the importance
of Groklaw.
The reasoned, intelligent and factual approach of Groklaw is the best possible
answer to the trite, superficial and tendentious style of that article.
Regrettably we are unlikely to reach the same audience that Forbes addresses.
The really interesting questions is: What is Daniel Lyons' motivation? Why does
an experienced reporter express such intemperate views on the basis of such
little research?
But to broaden the topic. As another reader suggested, should we not also extend
our coverage to the other important law cases? The Lindows - MS case comes to
mind.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 03:53 AM EST |
Hi all
Beeing a lurker (and non-english native), I have no
account, but just wanted to ask: What is an MVP?
Googling turned up "Most Valued Professional", but that
kind of confuses me.
Thanks,
Mads Bondo Dydensborg
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Whats an MVP? - Authored by: rjamestaylor on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 03:57 AM EST
- Whats an MVP? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 06:26 AM EST
- Whats an MVP? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 05:42 AM EST
- Whats an MVP? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 06:58 AM EST
- Whats an MVP? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 09:55 AM EST
- Whats an MVP? - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 01:14 PM EST
- Whats an MVP? - Authored by: rand on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 11:03 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: gumout on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 06:40 AM EST |
I am suprised that someone has not intimated trouble
because of the sale of old Caldera, its new owners, and Chp.
2 sec. 205(e) of the Copyright Act. Could effect the
lawsuit in New Jersey unless there is an alternative
theory... though this is just speculation.
---
My wife said she would rather kiss Saddam Hussein than
Daniel Lyons. Now, why would she say that when she's got me?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 08:06 AM EST |
One thing I would like to see discussed more is the topic
of mitigation of damages in the context of a copyright
infringement lawsuit.
As I see it, "mitigation of damages" as a doctrine is an
affirmative defense that applies in the fields of contract
law, sales, and common law torts. I have been unable to
find any application of this doctrine in the context of
copyright infringement (although if ever there was a case
in which it *should* apply, this seems to be it).
In fact, what I have found is this, from section 504 of
the Copyright law:
(c) Statutory Damages. -
(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection,
the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final
judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual
damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all
infringements involved in the action, with respect to any
one work, for which any one infringer is liable
individually, or for which any two or more infringers are
liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than
$750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For
the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a
compilation or derivative work constitute one work.
(2) ... In a case where the infringer sustains the burden
of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was
not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her
acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court
in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory
damages to a sum of not less than $200.
From my admittedly inadequate research, it appears that
the statutory damages are to be applied with respect to
each work, rather than to each copy of the work. Still,
the words "not less than $200" suggest that there might be
no way for a court to reduce monetary damages below the
statutory minimum.
Nevertheless, from section 117 of the Copyright statute:
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of
Copy. -
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not
an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer
program to make or authorize the making of another copy or
adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an
essential step in the utilization of the computer program
in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no
other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival
purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed
in the event that continued possession of the computer
program should cease to be rightful.
Section 117 appears to support the contention that you do
not need a license to run a computer program, as long as
possession of the copy of the program that you own is
"rightful."
The issue, as I see it, concerns when ownership of the
computer program ceases to become "rightful."
Suppose you are party "X," and you run program "Foobaz."
Completely unrelated party "Y" is sued over the program
"Foobaz" by party "Z" who owns copyrights in program
"Foobaz," Party "Z" wins. Party "Y" did
not sell party
"X" copies of the program "Foobaz," so party
"Z's"
remedies are not exhausted. But party "X" has not had a
chance to challenge party "Z's" assertions in a court of
law, so it would appear to be the case that party "X" is
not bound by any decision in the "Y" v. "Z" case.
Moreover, during the litigation, party "Z" manages to keep
secret those parts of "Foobaz" that are found to infringe,
even though those parts could be separated from program
"Foobaz." Also, party "X" purchased the copy of program
"Foobaz" from party "W" in the normal course of their
businesses, and every part of "Foobaz" is apparently
covered and appropriately licensed by other parties "A,"
"B," and "C".
My question is, after the "Y" v. "Z" lawsuit, is
continued
possession of program "Foobaz" by "X" rightful, so long
as
"Z" has not specifically brought "X" into court to
litigate the matter? And even if it is not, does
knowledge of the decision against "Y" give "X" make
"X"
aware or have reason to believe that any of his acts
constitute infringement of "Z's" copyright, such that
statutory damages should be increased above $200?
No one can or should rely upon my admittedly inadequately
researched posting. But I would like to see these issues
discussed.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 10:10 AM EST |
This site is many levels above just another blob or forum.
It's the only place I've visited where it's okay to care, where ideas can be
shared without fear of being put down, where it's okay to ask stupid
questions.
I haven't seen a single comment putting someone down for not knowing or not
being sure. I haven't seen any gratuitus childish insults (except maybe
directed at our common foe). I haven't seen any stupid boasting or showing off
in a "mine is bigger than yours" manner.
Sure the amount, accuracy and fairness of information distributed here is
invaluable to annyone interested in this case and the future of Linux. But this
place is truly special for completely different reasons and that's why I love
it so much.
Thank's PJ.
---
No guns, no bombs...just brains
The way it should be.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 10:25 AM EST |
I expected the stock price to mysteriously rise before the teleconf on Monday,
but not by this much.
I also notice whenever there is bad news it goes up, not down.
Can anyone who really understands the stock market comment if the SCO stock
price is behaving normally, or is there something strange going on?
(18.55 righ now!)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 10:26 AM EST |
SCOX is up over a dollar in the first 40 minutes of trading right now, and it is
unusually heavy volume. (180k traded already when the three month average is
320k). I am amazed at the confidence people seem to have.
Perhaps the economy is even stronger than we thought, or lots of people are
giving away SCO shares as stocking-stuffers this year!
Mike A.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Stumbles on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 10:44 AM EST |
Over at LinuxToday there is a comment to the article SCO's House
of Suits. A poster (John) made some points about SCO's attempt to
invalidate GPL. This has wondering how they could they expect to
benifit from it. On the surface John's points seem reasonable.
Here is the link;
http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2003121702326OPBZCD#talkback_area
Frankly (if I had it) I would bet a large sum of money (at least in this
case) the GPL will stand firm through all this. OTOH lets assume
SCO pulls out of their hat some astoundingly brillant legal
manuvering and the GPL is deemed invalid.
What would happen to all the GPL code? Would it go into public
domain, just where/who would get it? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bertboerland on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 11:24 AM EST |
| off topic, but i think needed:
why dont we (the oss community) boycot the investors in sco(x)?
I
posted an article and poll about stopping ING (Dutch bank, owns 1 %) at ing support
sco. (see also sco on my
blog)
Any other initiatives of punishing the investors in a legal
way? ---
--
groets,
bertb
http://willy.boerland.com/myblog [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jog on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 12:07 PM EST |
This may be old news:
PJ is mentioned (well mentioned) in:
jog[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gumout on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 12:27 PM EST |
Richard Stallman can be mono maniacal in his beliefs. His
micromanagement of the Free Software Foundation is
legendary.
Eben Moglen would not have lasted as pro bono counsel for
the Free Software Foundation for more than thirty seconds
had his legal opinions not have been in perfect harmony with
Richard Stallman's beliefs. That's not a good solid legal
foundation for review.
Here is a Law Professor at Clevland State University:
http://lists.essential.org/upd-discuss/msg00131.html
Here is a Law Professor at Case Western Reserve University:
http://lists.softwarelibero.it/pipermail/diritto/2002-Februa
ry/000641.html
Here is a respected intellectual property attorney:
http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/m
sg01522.html
Here is the Procd decision:
http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html
Try actually reading these links and examining the
implications.
---
I hate eating crow. It tastes awful and the feathers get stuck in my teeth.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 12:29 PM EST |
Ten years from now, when cooperative/open source/weblog-based legal research has
become a normal, recognized part of our legal system, PJ will be recognized as
the mother of it all. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 01:01 PM EST |
On a quick search on Forbes for "Lyons" you get the following
result:
259 documents found matching your query "lyons"
Quest
Against Fire
December 22, 2003
Hot Stuff
December 22, 2003
A small Utah firm aims to turn up the heat on mighty DuPont.
Revenge Of The Nerds
December 16, 2003
The Linux army attacks SCO.
Is it funny? Scary? Or both?
The thing that is extremely interesting-
The story hits on the 22nd - THE SAME DAY as the SCOX Conference
Call...
Does David know something that no one else does?
Search URL
that yeilded the
above:
http://forbes.com/search/results.jhtml?MT=lyons&sort=&aname=&a
mp;author=&date=&RD=DM [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 02:54 PM EST |
So then I must have been wrong.
But what appens then is that nobody can use the code anymore?
Or at least untill every single code contributor is contacted and accept to have
the code distributed and used under a new License?
Then that license, in order to respect the original intent of the GPL and of all
it's contributors would probably be very close to the existing GPL but
different enough to stand on it's own untill the Next SCO.
So what would be the point. Unless a judge decides to make illegal the sharing
of code, they will never be able to make it disappear. Unless the can make
illegal sharing code only without the intent to make money off it and keep that
secret.
It just makes no sense to even contest the GPL.
Ahhhhh those crazy people...
---
No guns, no bombs...just brains
The way it should be.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gdt on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 06:54 PM EST |
Two things have struck me about the public's response to SCO v IBM and Red
Hat v SCO. First, obviously, is Groklaw and how it works to build a
community.
Secondly is the poor performance of industry analysts. In
the past few years they have managed two significant failures: overstating the
risk of Y2K, and becoming puppets of vendors in "pay for praise"
scandals.
Some of the established IT analyst firms have the dubious
distinction of missing every real trend by at least two years (the PC, Linux,
the Internet) but promoting vapourware which is still in its infancy and which
in many cases does not grow to be more than of marginal interest to their
clients (messaging-based middleware, OSI networking, etc).
You'd have
thought that the IT analyst industry would be trying hard to recover their
reputation -- they are under threat from trade journalists at the low end and
from accounting/consulting firms at the high end.
Instead we've had
reports based on nothing more than prejudice (which cuts both ways, many
analysts expecting IBM to prevail simply because of their belief in IBM, many
analysts believing in SCO's cause because of their big name
lawyer).
We've had reports based on the unchecked words of SCO, and when
some of these words have eventually shown to have been "misspoken" the analysts
haven't updated their advice nor checked further words from SCO.
We've
had conflicting advice from the same firm. Should I let a SCO representative
into my server room or not?
We've had statements which show an
astonishingly poor understanding of the US legal system.
The analysts
are naive. They don't consider for a moment that SCO may not be fully up-front.
You think they'd have learned from the dot.com bust.
In short, their
performance has been woeful.
My firm won't be renewing their
subscription for a number of analyst firms. On the issue we care most about
Groklaw and our native intelligence provides more relevant advice.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
