|
|
| Darl Compares Copyright to Brands on Cattle and Groklaw is in Salon.com |
 |
|
Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 03:43 AM EDT
|
A quick heads up. Darl has done a radio interview with Sky Radio, which you can listen to here if you don't mind visiting the SCO website. It's an mp3. (Sky Radio has a bunch of interviews with Linux folks too, by the way, titled "The Truth About Linux", including one with Red Hat's CEO Matt Szulik, here.) You can also hear Darl's interview if you fly on United, according to SCO's website: "You can also hear this interview on Sky Radio on all United Airlines flights in July and August," it tells us. I am one of those poor souls who feel terror in airplanes, so I can't imagine anything worse than being in an airplane and having to listen to this at the same time. Talk about Dante's Inferno. He compares SCO's lawsuits to the music industry, again, claiming that after the music industry began enforcing its "intellectual property", piracy was cut in half. It seems his dad asked him what was up with all the lawsuits, and he explained it like this: copyright is like brands on cattle. They used to raise cattle, and somebody stole some of their cattle and the brandings made it possible to get their cattle back. Guess who are the evil cattle rustlers in this picture?
What a degrading and insulting comparison, particularly when there is absolutely no evidence of anybody stealing anything that belongs to SCO. The interviewer introduces him by saying SCO is "the owner of the UNIX operating system". Sigh. We need to work on this point more, I guess, until people understand that they maybe own one version of the UNIX operating system, and Novell disputes their ownership to boot. Groklaw is mentioned in an article by Farhad Manjoo, "Making the world safe for free software" on Salon. Just go to their home page and look for that title and the intro, "A litigious blitzkrieg by the anti-Linux crusader the SCO Group has been enraging open-source developers for months. But SCO's attack has ignited its own counterreaction." If you don't have a sub, you can get a one-day free pass, if you look at an ad. Here's one part about our work together on the ABI files: "For example, in January, a group of Groklaw regulars published an exhaustive examination of a set of files in Unix System V called the Application Binary Interface; the team looked at the legal and technical history of these files, as well as SCO's role in their development, in order to determine whether SCO could reasonably sue others for using the ABI files. . . .
"'I couldn't do that definitive research without the community,' says Pamela Jones. 'I don't think IBM could either, for that matter. I believe we have established that there is no point in SCO pursuing the ABI files.'
"Jones has been praised by just about everyone in the open-source world for her efforts to undermine SCO. Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, has said that Groklaw shows 'how the open-source ideals end up working in the legal arena, too, and I think that has been very useful and made a few people sit up and notice.' Bruce Perens calls Jones 'paralegal to the world.' Clay Shirky, the influential tech pundit, points out that '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 many lawyers they throw at it.'"
The article links to the first ABI article Frank Sorenson took the lead on, but as you know we have done many since and will be doing more. I just thought you would like to know that your efforts are noticed and appreciated. Even Blake Stowell, who thinks we are "one-sided" acknowledges that we have been successful in getting our "opinion" out there. I just noticed that Linux Journal has an article I wrote about Groklaw in the May issue, and some of you are mentioned in it too. A reader, Karl Pinc, just sent in two extraordinary articles from VARBusiness. I will be writing about some of the information eventually, but I couldn't wait to share the links with you. Check out the numbers for Linux he points out: "Two interesting Linux articles:
Leading Microsoft's Linux Attack: Q&A With Martin Taylor -- Taylor speaks out on the merits of Windows.
"Reports on server installed base:
-
9-10M Windows (of which 40% are NT)
- 3.1M Unix
- 3.0M Linux
- 2.9M Netware
"That's about a 16% installed base for Linux, the largest I've seen
reported. Note that together Netware and Linux have ~31%.
"Another: Betting Big on Linux --
Gartner reports Linux has 25% of the server shipments today.
A software vendor says: 'support costs are much lower for
Linux than the Redmond platform'." There is a lot more in the articles, including a part that gives me a clue why Microsoft did the Sun deal and the Intertrust settlement. One of the "myths" about Linux, according to Taylor, is the myth of greater interoperability. So with Sun they increased their interoperability, and with InterTrust, do they figure to reduce Linux's ability to interoperate due to DRM lockout? Anyway, I know you'll enjoy reading the two articles, particularly the second, where you'll find information that I believe provides an answer to Ms. DiDio's odd skewing of results to find Linux TCO greater than MS's. Dilbert has a series of cartoons on Dogbert's new company that specializes in doing tainted research. My personal favorite is this one.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 04:19 AM EDT |
| Looks like Darl is trying to lay claim to our brand. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 04:22 AM EDT |
| Please put corrections here, so I can find them quickly. Thank you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Juggler9 on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 04:27 AM EDT |
| http://www.skyradionet.com/linux.cfm [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 04:36 AM EDT |
Poor Darl, We should protect him from himself.
I find it sad to see avarage people try to be abnormaly
clever/witty and fail at it so misserably while everybody
curls there toes in shame/laughter because it so obvious
.Only he doesn't realize he's out of his league and makes
a absolute fool of himself.
Now ofcourse i'm just a avarage ( or below ) person.
Maybe it's happening to me right now. Maybe my post are a
complete waist of bits and my spelling is that of a 6 year
old.
Maybe i'm clueless.
Maybe most people who read my stuff regard me as a total
idiot.
But i'm not hurting/attacking people in my ignorance.
Retep Vosnul.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 04:59 AM EDT |
Where does he get this 50% reduction in music piracy from? Everything i've seen
says the opposite. Does anyone know where he got this number from?
James[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dodger on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 05:19 AM EDT |
Losing your UNIX business is like losing cattle: you lose some to sickness, you
lose some to bad market, you lose some to drought, but worst of all, you lose
most of them through mistreating your fellow farmers and your work-hands. You
blame your bad luck on everyone else. You claim that the neighbors cows are your
own. You spend all your energy trying to claim that their cows are yours; that
the brands were somehow manipulated. Perhaps you have nothing to lose; the
business was so bad, you see it as an all or nothing proposition.
Our only hope in this world is that somehow we treat our neighbors decently and
that we face the drought together.
Darl, you know the bad guy in the western - you're him.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cheros on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 05:50 AM EDT |
IMO we have to be careful here. The statement that GrokLaw et al are
"undermining" SCO shows IMO a dangerously wrong perception.
The GrokLaw community is simply extracting the facts from a veritable mountain
of FUD (to give it a polite name ;-), to show reality where truth is obscured or
even twisted and to lay bare the true motives and drivers of the people
involved. OK, it is occasionally quite passionate (understatement ;-), but
GrokLaw stands for facts, not hype, truth, not hyperbole, fairness, not baseless
attacks (in which context I have some concern about pure MS rants as they might
endanger that position).
That this undermines the people and companies involved is, to quote Linus, a
"wholly unintentional side effect". The only way the operating basis
and company revenues were undermined were by the actions of SCO's management
(and of other organisations involved). It was their choice - the damage is self
inflicted.
Having said all that, I'm more and more convinced SCO is just a (FUD) vehicle.
I'm just not so sure the executives will be able to easily walk away from the
wreckage when it is all over..[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Groklaw IS undermining SCO, and we're proud of it - Authored by: John on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 06:35 AM EDT
- Correction: Groklaw is NOT undermining SCO - Authored by: blacklight on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 07:51 AM EDT
- Correction: Groklaw is INDIRECTLY undermining SCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 08:03 AM EDT
- Darl is undertmining SCO... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 08:27 AM EDT
- Correction: Groklaw undermines SCO... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 08:55 AM EDT
- The Point - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 10:49 AM EDT
- Correction: Groklaw is NOT undermining SCO - Authored by: Ares_Man on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 11:51 AM EDT
- Correction: we are zealots - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 12:11 PM EDT
- Correction: Groklaw is NOT undermining SCO - Authored by: TomWiles on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 12:15 PM EDT
- Correction: Groklaw is NOT undermining SCO - Authored by: dracoverdi on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 12:23 PM EDT
- Groklaw IS and IS NOT undermining them... - Authored by: inimicus on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 12:44 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: timthoe on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 05:55 AM EDT |
I seem to remember some story about one of the American airlines where one
had to pay for the interviews on their on board radio. In return you got the
questions you wanted. I am not saying that this is the case here and a fast
Google search didn't turn up anything. Maybe somebody else could my
memory?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 06:21 AM EDT |
| Here is a link
to an article explaining how Sky Radio could be more accurately labeled as a
provider of paid advertisements thinly disguised as news. Forbes Radio is
described as 30 minutes of actual news content followed by about 90 minutes of
public-affairs programming known as "The Business and Technology Report" that is
assembled by Sky Radio. The going price on October, 2003, was apparently just
$5900 for an organization to get their point of view heard (with a possible
discount to as low as $3500). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: toolboxnz on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 06:26 AM EDT |
"If you grow from one to two, you've grown 50 percent."
1 + 50% = 1.5
1 + 100% = 2 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RevSmiley on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 06:39 AM EDT |
I wonder if the McBride's may have got most of their cattle by using whats know
as a "running iron" if Darl's antics are anything to go by. That is a type of
branding iron used primarly by cattle ruslters to alter others cattle brands. If
the shoe fits Darl you got to wear it. Where I grew up in the old days getting
caught with a "running iron" was a "short drop" offence. IBM® will be more
that glad to provide the rope for this "neck tie party" I am sure.
See
ya in court goat roper ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HDarl.
---
Never accredit to
unalloyed evil what simple greed compounded with stupidity can explain. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 06:44 AM EDT |
| I think this
Dilbert cartoon shows the true Darl :) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 07:12 AM EDT |
So Darl drives his cattle into a dry and barren pasture, where they di... - erh,
he says they mysteriously disappeared.
But Darl is not going to take this loss as the result of his own poor
management. He points out that the farmer next door has cattle suspiciously like
his.
"My cattle didn't die. They was stolen! Why look at them cattle next door:
same four legs as mine! And two horns, just like mine. And they eats GRASS, just
like mine."
"Why anyone can see they IS my cattle what the farmer next door done
stole."
Meanwhile, federal agents are investigating whether Darl even owned the cattle
he was running on his ranch....
"Heck, a lot of them cows had the BSD brand on 'em. And a whole heap of
wild cattle used to just graze wherever they liked - sometimes on Darl's ranch,
sometimes on other ranches. They had no brand - certainly weren't Darl's
paid-for stock. I reckoned he never owned more than handful of cows that grazed
on his property - and they all died from hunger."
That Darl can rant and rave all he likes afore the judge, pretending he warn't
the foolish cattle-man he is, but there ain't nothing next door that ever
belonged to him. He's just trying it on because he's a poor loser and a sore
loser.
But maybe he hopes to be such a pain in the neck that the rancher next door will
buy him out just to get rid of him. Of course, the ranch itself ain't worth much
at all. Don't know why anybody'd want to buy it.
But what else can Darl do? He done failed at everything else.
----------------------------
OK, Darl. Tell *that* story to your father. Maybe then he'll understand.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 07:29 AM EDT |
Poor Darl misses the fine points again.
No matter how much branding he tries, his cows are mine.
A quick scan by MIT and other academics will reveal that
Millions of Genes in his cows DNA are verbatim copies of
those in my cows.`
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 07:31 AM EDT |
"... copyright is like brands on cattle. They used to raise cattle, and
somebody stole some of their cattle and the brandings made it possible to get
their cattle back ..." Darl McBride paraphrased.
As I understand it, every steer that the Darl McBride ranch claims as theirs has
the brand of some other legitimate owner on it. What DB calls getting the cattle
back is called stealing from the legitimate owners by everyone else.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Dominic Jackson on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 07:49 AM EDT |
"When large corporations buy applications from proprietary software firms
such as Microsoft, they are usually sold rock-solid "indemnification"
packages -- clauses that let the customer off the hook in the case of any legal
question surrounding the software."
Are they? I thought half of the answer to the indemnification FUD was that the
average proprietary software vendor doesn't provide indemnification either?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Cal on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 08:11 AM EDT |
I think this is by far the more important article covered in this thread. Here
we find the future of MS's attack on FOSS and Linux in particular. Taylor spins
some very interesting tales while trying to make Windows look better than
Linux.
For instance, the thought that Windows is used as a general purpose server
whereas Linux is typically used for a single purpose. Now, the first thing I
learned about Windows server, (and yes, where I work we are a Windows shop) is
that you NEVER make Windows do more than one thing at a time. It is just asking
for trouble. And, in fact, that used to be the recommendation directly from
Redmond. If you have Windows performing mission critical tasks, then it should
only do one thing. For instance, your domain controller should be a domain
controller only. Your SQL Server shold be a SQL Server only. Same for
Exchange, DNS, DHCP, IIS, you name it. So, we have a ton of Windows servers all
doing one task. And I think that is the way you will find most shops doing it.
Now, at home I have one server running RedHat 9 that does it all: SAMBA,
Apache, MySQL and with no problems. Any guess on where I see the most
problems?
Next, his argument about security is specious. Is it just me, or did Redmond
just release 4 patches for 20 security vulnerabilities, covering ALL of their
servers, including W2K3? And the thought that Windows gets more attention
becase they are in a mission critical role is a joke. Security is MOST
important on the edge, where hackers and script kiddies have open ports to play
with. That is why we see Windows servers hiding behind Linux proxies. He also
throws out the thought that more eyes does not equal more secure software. This
is the classic 'security by obscurity' line wrapped in new clothing, and has
little or no relevance. One question, if security firms were not pulling apart
Microsft software looling for vulnerabilities, how many would get caught? It
seems like every patch is the result of a third party looking at Windows and
finding something wrong, thereby forcing MS to fix it - even if it takes 6 or 7
months. Now, who's eyes are more valuable? In a sense he is right, more eyes
have nothing to do with it. It is the brains behind them, and a dedication by
FOSS programmers to write secure code, and to fix problems immediately when they
are located.
And, finally there is the indemnification FUD. All I can say is, please take a
look at MS' EULA. SHOW ME THE INDEMNIFICATION!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 08:26 AM EDT |
If ever an argumentative position was so fallacious as
the argument by comparison.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 08:43 AM EDT |
| on mysterious UNIX mutilations by aliens? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 08:46 AM EDT |
From the MSFT interview, "Taylor: If you grow from one to two, you've grown
50 percent. It's just math."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 08:50 AM EDT |
Taylor said: >Most customers say, "Hey, if I have to spend money, I
don't want to spend it to keep the core infrastructure up and running."
<
His customers probably do say that to him. They are fed up with all the
security patching that they have to do, that costs them big bucks.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 09:11 AM EDT |
| The VARBusiness article, Betting Big on Linux, is a nice "rah-rah" piece. It shows enthusiasm for
Linux and quotes from a number of company representatives who are using Linux as
a base for their products.
However, there was a common error repeated in the
article.
- "Last, be aware that the specter of legal action by SCO,
which is claiming patent rights to the Linux source code, may render some
customers skittish." SCO has not claimed any patent rights to the Linux
source code. The only patent claims so far have come from IBM in their
countersuit against SCOG and Unixware. This seems to be a common problem -
mistaking one type of "Intellectual Property" for another.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 09:21 AM EDT |
<<He compares SCO's lawsuits to the music industry, again, claiming that
after the music industry began enforcing its "intellectual property",
piracy was cut in half.>>
Has anybody told him yet that the Canadian courts have declared that they found
music copying not to be illegal?
Just keep going Darl. Keep making your case into something that's perfectly
legal in my country...
Thanks.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 09:21 AM EDT |
I received my monthly copy of Linux Journal yesterday. I
always read it front to back. When I got to the last page
I was absolutely delighted to see your article! The article
made me feel really proud to be a regular reader, supporter,
and sometimes contributer to Groklaw. The Open Law idea is revolutionary. You
have become part of computer, Linux, and
legal history. Your dedication and integrity truly
set you apart.
Thank you, very much.
Rick
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: raindog on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 09:22 AM EDT |
I think it's more like this: You notice all the other farms suddenly have cattle
that are twice as big as yours but require 90% less feed. You assume, since
they have cattle and you have cattle, that they must have come from that big
commercial farm to whom the previous owner of your farm sold their stud services
to 20 years ago, so you call the law down on that big farm and in the meantime
start threatening other farms too, hoping they'll see you're willing to go after
the big guy and just sort of give you their cattle.
But when it comes time to do DNA testing, you demur, instead walking around town
wearing an enormous ten-gallon hat claiming you did your own DNA testing but
showing only (altered) pictures of cattle side by side saying "See? That
one has a brown spot on its rump, and so does mine."
Meanwhile, you start spending all your time at the watering hole (wearing ever
larger hats) bragging about how pretty soon you reckon you're going to own all
the cows on all the farms around. In the meantime, having neglected your own
cattle during this whole squalid affair, they begin to die off, leaving your
farm with no prospects except the hope you can convince a lawman that you're
entitled to everyone else's cattle.
Pretty soon, people realize you're (sigh....) all hat and no cattle.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 09:30 AM EDT |
<fantasy quote>
DARL: ...so you see dad, the Unix copyrights are like the brand on our cattle.
Our lawsuits are about what we are making people step in out in the field when
we wave our arms and yell "Thief". It's really quite amusing, dad, and
there is also the stock manipulation which brings in quite a bit of money....
</fantasy quote>
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 10:00 AM EDT |
This situation is actually more like some cattle went through a couple sale
barns and have multiple brands on them. Then they were stolen out of some poor
farmers pasture, only to turn up months later in a sale barn across the county
with a big sloppy SCO brand hastily applied in an attempt to cover the original
brands and hide ownership.
The cattle rustler always tries to modify the brand to make it look like they
weren't stolen. Not any different here.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 10:01 AM EDT |
Re: cattle brands.
My guess it that the analogy ol' cowboy Darl would like to evoke is of the
branded cow and her unbranded calf. Historically, during round up one went into
the brush and rounded up all of the branded an unbranded cattle. If a calf was
with a branded mother, it got the same brand. I suspect that Darl would like
some to view Linux as the unbranded calf of SCOG's UNIX. He would like to brand
it as theirs. Then there was that other western folkway of grabbing unbranded
cattle and branding them as your own. It was called cattle rustling and hanging
was a common response. Sounds good to me. As we say around here, "Get a
rope".
greybeard, who forgot to log back in[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: T. ProphetLactus on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 10:03 AM EDT |
Rancher A and Rancher B both have herds line bred to a famous bull named
"BSD Demon". Rancher B gets along well with all the other ranchers in
the county, and continues to bring in new bloodlines to offset any weakness in
his genetics, while rancher A becomes obsessed with the famous common sire in
the pedigree and closes his herd. Rancher A eventually notices that his cattle
are becoming 'weedy' (compared to rancher B's) because of inbreeding depression
in his closed herd, and the fact that he has become a bit too greedy and is
overgrazing his pastures, and as a result, no one wants to pay much for his
cattle at the sale barn anymore. Instead of spending his money wisely on new
stock and pasture management, he becomes unbalanced with envy, and has his
Brother The Lawyer try to prove that rancher B has been secretly using his
"pure" bloodline to improve his stock ("The DNA PROVES
it!!") and tries to collect a stud fee on every calf born on B's land, as
well as all the calves born on any ranch that B has ever traded stock with. Soon
every rancher in the state knows that A has simply gone insane with envy, and
has spent far more money on court costs, lawyers, and DNA tests than it would
have taken to build up the finest ranch and the best herd out of *any* run-down
acreage, if he was smart. All the other ranchers now go a bit quiet when the
spiteful man walks by in the feed store; They all know the sad story of men
broken by their own greed and envy. "The only thing his stringy old cattle
are good for now is to be ground up for them Golden Arches hamburger joints, and
that big old showy brand he puts on those mangy cattle just means no one can
even use the hides for leather. The Damn Bank's gonna end up owning his whole
place. Tsk Tsk."
Several of the Federal Corrections Institutes do have a dairy herd where Daryl
can try to learn *something* about cows....
TPL
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 10:23 AM EDT |
SCO would have a fire full of "running irons" (branding irons with a
straight tip, used otalter or cross out brands) and be altering brands as fast
as they can, as well as claiming every slick in the county as theirs.
And probably claiming every cow that might have sipped from the stream that
comes out of the AT&T spread as theirs because they bought a water pitcher
from a guy who bought something from someone who bought something from AT&T
and that means all cows that drink that water are theirs.
They would also have every rancher in the country after their thieving hides for
rustling. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 10:28 AM EDT |
I mentioned tha SCOG has no patents related to Linux, and reviewed the current
status of the IBM and Novell cases.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 10:37 AM EDT |
The previous comments in this thread seem to be missing PJ's point. You are
letting the opposition define the terms when you buy into "Groklaw is
undermining SCO." What is really happening is that McBride and SCO are
undermining Linux and Groklaw is trying, through education and enlightenment, to
prevent that from happening.
billwww[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- PJ's Point - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 10:54 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Nick Bridge on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 10:40 AM EDT |
More like:
"We own these cows, and those heinous free-software people made some cows
that kinda look like ours, and they sing a dance and all sorts of stuff. We
feel like they're ours 'cos they walk and chew the cud - just like ours
do."
BTW:
By comparing software to concrete real world objects like cows or land, you can
use the terms "steal" and "theives".
Whereas with software, when you misappropriate it, the own still has it - the
perpetrator hasn't DEPRIVED anyone of the property.
It's still a crime, but a very different one.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: skuggi on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 10:46 AM EDT |
They(Msoft) always talk about myths rounding Linux and that people choose it
because of those myths, they bypass the real truth which is that people just
don't want their freaking OS anymore.
-Skuggi.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mdchaney on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 11:01 AM EDT |
Just recently, their root directory was hacked, which is where they store
source code files.
What's this idiot even talking about? He's using
Unix terms, but he obviously doesn't know what they mean. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 11:51 AM EDT |
http://trends.newsforge.com/trends/04/04/14/228259.shtml?tid=137&tid=147
At first, SCO Group spokesman Blake Stowell was taken aback by the report.
"This is the first I've heard of this," Stowell said Wednesday
afternoon.
Due to the lateness of the hour in Germany, Stowell was unable to connect with
Blepp, but he later offered an explanation.
"The code that I believe Gregory is referring to has nothing to do with the
SCO vs. IBM case," Stowell told NewsForge late Wednesday.
"The code that Gregory is referring to is some of the same code that SCO
began showing to media, analysts, and other opinion leaders under non-disclosure
during the summer of 2003. This code is one of many examples that the company
has shown in order to prove that there is misappropriated Unix code in
Linux."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: captainhaddock on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 12:23 PM EDT |
Wow, Darl really wants us all to see what a fool he is, lacking any critical
reasoning skills whatsoever.
Copyright is so *not* like a branded cow. You brand cows because they're a
scarce commodity, and if someone takes yours, you can't have steak for dinner
any more.
The current analogy would be more like this: Old SCO paid Novell for milking
rights on some of Novell's cows. And now, new SCO claims all cows in the world
belong to them because the idea of a cow is the precious IP of SCO. Lord knows
no one could raise cows without SCO's precious IP know-how! And SCO wants
everyone to buy SCO's cattle-brand and put it on their own cows. He's even
threatening the end users, people who buy steak and hamburger from the
supermarket.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: penfold on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 12:29 PM EDT |
I'm sure it's old news to most people, but I figured it might be worth revisting
in light of the TCO FUD. The
Register has an article written about an internal M$ whitepaper that
compares Unix to Windows.
In a nutshell, when MS purchased Hotmail, the
site was running on a base of BSD servers, and it was decided to cutover to
Windows servers to follow the company policy of "eating our own dogfood." (From
what I can tell, that directive came directly from Gates himself.)
The
Register mentions some of the points in the Microsoft whitepaper why Unix
is cheaper, more reliable, and easier to administer than
Windows.
---
Blood from a turnip? That's easy! Try getting SCOX to
produce evidence! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 12:30 PM EDT |
So Darl is talking again? And managed to get it on an airline? Forget
terrorism: sounds like he is purposely trying to spread lies to a wide audience,
perhaps millions over a 2-month spread. Misrepresentation? Slander?
Are they TRYING to force RedHat or the community to file for an injunction? Has
somebody sent a copy to the Utah judge? If there really is a gag order, in the
chambers, s/he may be very interested that he's at it again.
Guess which airline I **WILL NOT** fly during July/August? And I travel a lot,
including United. Business managers there should consider ramifications of
asking liars to speak on their business channel.
There were apparently close relations between Canopy and United in the past; at
one point, I believe they even tried to get all of the employees at their
companies to switch to United (hard: Salt Lake City is a Delta hub). Can
somebody find out more about the connection?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 01:17 PM EDT |
"Ahh think y'alls got some of mah cattle. So I want y'all to move your
cattle over to mah pen."
"Ok, what does your brand look like? We'll see if any of your cattle are
here."
"Ahh can't tell y'alls what mah brand looks like, Ahh just want to look at
all y'alls cattle."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: M|U on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 01:23 PM EDT |
I came across an article at the globe and mail
(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040415/TWKAPIC
A15//)
which repeats the TCO FUD that I believe has already been partly refuted.
(Isn't the yankee group the group didio works for, and it turns out that didio
gets money from M$?)
Anyway, I was wondering if anybody have any good links that refute the TCO stuff
that I could send to the author of this article. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: moogy on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 01:37 PM EDT |
The one bit of undisputed IP that SCOG owns is their
trademark. I do believe that Darl is trying to define
their trademark as providing them with property law
rights, patent law rights, and copyright law rights
as well as DMCA rights.
---
Mike Tuxford - irc.fdfnet.net #Groklaw
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you,
then they fight you, then you win. --Gandhi
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pyrite on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 01:53 PM EDT |
here is an article from Extreme Tech
that makes things clear:
Intel Reverse-Engineered AMD64
the highlights that struck me
as being relevant:
"While exactly copying a processor's
microarchitecture would be illegal, creating a compatible product through the
use of an original 'clean room' design is legally
protected."
"'There's no shame in it,'
Halfhill said of the reverse-engineering. 'AMD has reverse-engineered everything
Intel has done for years.'"
There are also the
side-effects of portability and being able to run the same binaries on the two
processors.
So yes, Linux is a lot like Unix. That's OK. You could call
it a clone, but it's more like an "evolution of". And despite even the most
articulate rhetoric from computer-illiterate individuals directed at their most
well-meaning and ethically-minded fellow computer-illiterate individuals, there
is nothing wrong with writing a cleanroom reimplementation.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mobrien_12 on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 02:17 PM EDT |
Repeat something often enough and people believe it.
And still, the Open Group, the true owners of the UNIX trademark and
specifications, does nothing.
At this point, I'm starting to suspect that the Open Group _wants_ SCO to win.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: darkonc on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 04:13 PM EDT |
| Hmm. I've never had problems with flying, but I guess that's because being on
airplanes is among my earliest memories.
Remember that Flying is actually safer
than the drive to the airport.
If you're worried about hijackings, then just
remember: the next time as bearded man jumps up with a dinner knife yelling
"look what I've got!", just stand up and
introduce
yourself.
If the source of your fear is the sense of lack of control,
then you might want to learn how to fly a plane (seriously!) Stallman might be
able to arrange that for you, too. ---
Powerful, committed communication.
Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: philc on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 04:57 PM EDT |
cadet - can't add don't try
Going from 1 to 2 is a 100% increase.
1000 mission critical systems 5 fringe linux systems.
From the other numbers: Windows 50%, unix, lniux, netware 16% each. Also 40% of
Windows is NT.
So for 1000 Mission critical Windows boxes we have 400 mission critical NT
boxes. One wonders at the level of the bar one must get over to be called
mission critical. This also places the 5 fringe Linux systems below NT. But then
he contradicts that elsewhere by saying linux is more secure than NT.
From his own disribution, for 400 NT 600 (more recent) Windows servers 300 Unix
300 linux and 300 netware. Out of this mix it looks like the only mission
critical systems are the 400 NT and 600 Windows. Go figure.
He has a Darl moment in defining interoperable as Windows applications being
able to interoperate on the same Windows server. Many people think of
interoperating as various vendor's software and hardware being able to
interoperate. Also more reliable means more reliable than NT.
Does anyone at Microsoft actually believe what he says?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: darkonc on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 05:56 PM EDT |
| Dunno where else to put it, and a previous article I put in this thread gave me
the idea, so:
An older man and his son are walking around a farm yard
towards an old barn.
Man: Your great grandparents put this barn up almost
100 years ago.
Son: All by themselves?
Man: Ah, no. It was a community
project. All the neighbours from miles around would come together and help build
it. Each person would provide their own abilities and expertise to the
project.
Son: wow!
Man: Turns out a whole community could do in a day
what would take one family weeks to do... but the community would do a much
better job.
Boy: Sounds like Linux
Man: Linux?
Boy: It's a computer
operating system
Man: Like windows?
Boy: Yeah, onlyt
better
Textover: "Linux: the new old way of doing
things.
(Fade to: Inside the house working on a computer)
Man: So do we
have to reboot now?
boy: no.
Man: wow!. ---
Powerful, committed
communication. Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jayfar on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 09:26 PM EDT |
with the cattle ranch analogies. A tip of the 10-gallon hat to all the
talented amateur comedian groklawers who have riffed so brilliantly off
of witless straight man Darl's setup. ROFL. Mooooo! Jay Leno and Conan
ain't
got nothing on y'all %-D[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 15 2004 @ 10:49 PM EDT |
to the previously invoked buckets and ladders. That leaves quite a bit of stuff
before we've got the 'discovery of the universe'! What might the next
metaphorical item be? 'It's like a sandwich your Honor. We demand the crusts be
removed, while IBM insists that it is their lunch.'
According to
Kaleidoscopic Kevin McBride, we 'have to have the discovery of the universe'
before we know which 'bucket' code falls in, so I assume that they will exhaust
a universe of metaphors looking for some transcendent, Gump-style metaphor to
magically work some kind of verbal alchemy (although I wouldn't say it was
'coal' they are trying to turn into gold).
We can only speculate what other,
more sublime metaphors may be in store:
'It's like a pinata, your
Honor. If we blindfold ourselves and flail away at it with sticks, something may
fall out.'
'It's like an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie, your Honor. A few
crappy lines and a lot of smoke.'
'It's like The Flintstones/Scooby
Doo, your honor. It sucked in two dimensions, but became even worse in
reality.'
These guys are like a cross between Dennis Miller and
the Hello Kitty writing team!
yes, this is a sort of rerun of some
old posts - reduse, reuse, recycle![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mobrien_12 on Friday, April 16 2004 @ 12:34 AM EDT |
OK see, we own this 25 year old Bull. We bought him from the Santa Cruz
Operation, who bought him from Novell, who bought him from AT&T. Then we
changed our name to SCO so we really never bought him, we're really the same
company as the Santa Cruz Operation (even though they still exist and are
called Tarantella now). But we have the same brand as oldSCO so we must be
SCO.
Anyway, AT&T rented the bull out to stud to IBM's cows named NUMA, JFS, RCU.
The resulting hybrid calves were derivative works. Then IBM used the same
original cows (NUMA, RCU, JFS) and a different bull named Linux to make a new
generation of Linux calves that had no genetic material from the AT&T bull
(now the SCO Bull). But because the IBM cows once mated with the SCO Bull, the
new Linux is a derivative work of the SCO Bull.
But the Linux bull looks like our Bull, and could also mate with the IBM cows,
just like the SCO Bull. Furthermore, the Linux bull also has four legs, two
eyes, one mouth, one nose, a set of teeth, two horns, four stomachs etc etc so
clearly the original linux bull that IBM mated to their cows is an unlicenced
derivative of the SCO Bull.
It is also a fact that we own Bull, despite the fact that the Open Group owns
the trademarks and specifications of cows.
Thus the breeders of the Linux cows obviously somehow stole the genetic material
of the SCO Bull a long time ago. As a result, we are going to sue anyone with a
Linux cow. Pay no attention to the fact that we are actually only suing our
former customers and business partners.
We actually used to breed Linux cows and put a lot of the genetic material into
them that we now claim was stolen from the SCO bull, but let's not talk about
that. Also, ignore the BSD cows, because you do not need a SCO IP licence for a
properly licenced BSD cow. Also ingore the fact that Novell says we didn't buy
the Bull but just the stud farming rights. We own BULL!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: robmyers on Friday, April 16 2004 @ 04:28 AM EDT |
| Darl's no rancher. He's a 419er... :-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 17 2004 @ 12:32 PM EDT |
My understanding of the cattle branding is more like:
I raise a brand of cattle which everyone likes, and many have taken a liking
to.
Somebody buys or tries to buy my whole line of cattle, and I agree and sell my
stock of cattle.
Now the team who bought my cattle decides that they can make more money selling
the cattle in a new way and say "you can't resell the cattle, in whole or
part without paying me a percentage, you can neither remake the cattle, that is
create a new breed using my breed without paying me a part and also I am
entitled to title the said new cattle as property"
Which means the dispute would be that the hide or intestines have now been sold
or MAYBE someone created similar animal and sold it, the former owner shouts
"my product being abused!!!, pay up".
But in my humble experience, if I bought a good breeding cattle and used it to
raise more - I would in general not need to pay back to the former owner. If I
borrow a breeding cattle I pay for the job but I don't need to pay for calves or
future offspring of said job... But that is what SCO is charging for.
BR[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 11:54 AM EDT |
Taylor: If you grow from one to two, you've grown 50 percent. It's
just math.
Nice one. Except that if you grow from one to
two, you've grown by 100 percent - it's just math. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tordenskjold on Monday, April 19 2004 @ 11:21 PM EDT |
Here is a really funny piece from El Reg.
If you read SCO between the lines...etc etc
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/09/bofh_protecting_bodily_waste/
Enjoy[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
