|
|
| A Year of Groklaw: SCO On The Ropes? |
 |
|
Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 07:46 AM EDT
|
Today is Groklaw's one-year anniversary. Happy anniversary, everyone.
What a difference a year makes. When we started, all the headlines were saying that SCO was going to destroy Linux or at least make it cry. Now, looking around today, I see almost everyone predicting SCO's imminent doom instead. I think the truth, as usual, isn't in the headlines, and that it's somewhere in between those two extremes.
It seems appropriate to take a moment and look at a selection of current articles, to see how the mood has shifted. Lee Gomes, whom you may remember as being the first journalist who seemed to catch on to SCO, has just written an article for "California Lawyer" called "Desperate Measures -- A trade secrets case challenging open-source technology seems increasingly desperate". It's online but only for subscribers, but Denise Howell was kind enough to let me know about it. (You might also want to check out this article on the DMCA, mentioned on Howell's blog. The author predicts an increasing use by companies beyond just the entertainment industry of the DMCA's anticircumvention provisions as an anticompetition tool.) Gomes writes: "One lawyer's barratry is another lawyer's strategy. But attorneys contemplating a legal assault based on dubious facts would be wise to learn a lesson from The SCO Group's litigation against users of the Linux operating system: Be careful who you pick a fight with. The Lindon, Utah, software company couldn't have chosen a tougher target-or one with a more dedicated group of allies." He mentions Groklaw too, which felt good on our anniversary.
Here's what he said about us: "Almost as one, Linux users engaged SCO the same way they do everything else-collaboratively, on the Internet. Typical is Pamela Jones, a paralegal who tracks the SCO litigation in a blog, or Web log, called Groklaw (groklaw.net). It's a must read for anyone following the case, containing running commentary and links to all relevant court and SEC filings. Jones, who writes as 'P. J.,' gives a complete exegesis of the case, even to procedural rulings by U.S. District Judge Brooke C. Wells that are usually ignored by the press.
"The ferocity of SCO's opponents seems to be just one of its miscalculations. . . .
"But SCO's suit against IBM may produce unintended consequences. Linux has long been nagged by insinuations from competitors-Microsoft among them-that its open-source foundations are legally suspect. Now, with the Linux IP challenged in court, the open-source community is attempting to document its heritage. The result could be a clean bill of health for Linux-and a major headache for its giant rival to the north. And that's not exactly what SCO was hoping for."
Maybe that article is why Groklaw picked up a bunch of new users recently. If so, they are likely all lawyers. California lawyers. We have about 6,000 registered members now, in case you are counting, and many, many more who visit but don't have a user account.
Gomes isn't the only journalist who sees dark clouds on SCO's horizon. Robert X. Cringely®, who has trademarked that name, I notice, making me wonder if I should trademark PJ -- joke, joke -- weighs in on the RBC pullout and what it means for SCO:
"Last week the Royal Bank of Canada sold two-thirds of its shares in the world’s Most Despised Technology Company (that’s SCO, to you) to BayStar Capital. When the Canadians lose faith, you know you’re in trouble (unless you’re SCO and wouldn’t recognize trouble if it bit you in the Yukon). That leaves BayStar as the last wooden leg propping up SCO’s mega-billion-dollar lawsuits. Considering that the venture capital firm has publicly expressed concerns about SCO’s management team, I can’t imagine CEO Darl McBride is feeling too cozy right now." Others concur, that RBC's action indicates a lack of faith in SCO's chances, but notice what an RBC spokesman says here, indicating to me that they are keeping one foot in the door: "Chris Pepper, a spokesman for RBC Financial Group, told vnunet.com that the move was a 'business decision', but that the common stock investment meant that RBC was keeping its options open 'to see what is best'. . . .
"'This move by RBC does not change the $50m cash funding that SCO received as a result of the RBC and BayStar investments from last October,' said Stowell.
"But Gary Barnett, principal analyst at Ovum, stated: 'It does not bode well for SCO's lawsuit. If RBC thought SCO would win - so that shares would double in value - it wouldn't be seeking to back out, would it?'" Robert McMillan also says the SCO lawsuit hasn't achieved any slowdown of Linux in his article, "SCO changing industry, not slowing Linux -- Company not successfully shaking Linux; seen as overextended", which is accompanied by a sidebar of stats: "Although some open source advocates claim SCO’s strategy was designed to slow down the rate of Linux adoption, today that scenario does not seem to have panned out.
"Linux server shipments jumped by 52 percent in the fourth quarter of 2003, according to research company IDC, which expects Linux to almost double its market share from 16 percent in 2003 to 30 percent by 2008. . . .
"Charles King, an analyst at Sageza Group agreed, saying that if SCO’s strategy was to create uncertainty about Linux, the company has not been successful. With the number of lawsuits ballooning and one of SCO’s major investors, Baystar Capital, asking for its money back, SCO may be in real trouble. 'It’s got all the makings of a company that’s very badly overextended,' King said." McMillan did something interesting. He reinterviewed a man who had attended the SCOForum in Las Vegas last August, where SCO showed code that turned out not to be their property, but which wowed this man, John Moore, on that day. Here is what Moore said when he was interviewed at SCOForum last year: "The company's arguments seemed to hold weight with the SCO faithful. 'I think (they've) got a strong case,' said SCO reseller John Moore, the president of Moore Computer Consultants, based in Pembroke Pines, Florida.
"'I didn't really take into account the derivative works aspect of it. That's the nail in the coffin,' he noted. 'Not everybody was convinced they had a case. This removes all doubt.'" Moore was interviewed by ComputerWorld back then as well: "John Moore, president of Moore Computer Consultants in Pembroke Pines, Fla., said Lindon, Utah-based SCO renewed his faith at the show.
"'If I had any doubts before yesterday, as far as I'm concerned, they erased them,' he said. 'The real question is what happens next.'
"'I like the direction they're going in,' Moore said. 'We want to grow, too. We don't want to stay small forever.'" And how about today? How is this SCO loyalist viewing matters? "Still, SCO faithful, such as John Moore, president of Moore ComputerConsultants, give the Unix vendor credit for remaining a viable company.
“'Linux is going to find its place. If it lowers the cost of doing business, that’s the bottom line, and that’s what’s going to make it fly,' Moore said."
Like I said, a year can make a big difference. One thing that has not changed is Groklaw's view. From day one, I wrote that the case was flimsy, and that the GPL would stand effectively through the storm. I don't think the legal fight is done. Or the FUD fight. But that is still true. I was reading yesterday about the history of UNIX, in connection with the UNIX timeline project, and I came across a 1999 article comparing "Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 versus UNIX", and how extraordinary it was to see, particularly in the list of referenced articles at the end, that Microsoft FUD against Linux was largely the same years ago. Folks with a lot of money can be very annoying. Without the money, their arguments would have withered and died by now, because they make no actual sense. To illustrate what I mean about the legal fight not being over, eWeek has a very interesting interview with an IP lawyer, Glenn Peterson, who thinks SCO has more than a chance of winning on both motions, something I haven't been able to call. Of course, winning the remand to state court doesn't mean winning the slander of title action, by any means. Before you leap to the conclusion that he might be a SCO toady, note his name. It is the same attorney who represented nycfashiongirl in the RIAA-Verizon lawsuit. He prevailed and forced the RIAA to change their way of subpoenaeing their targets. You can read about that case in this PDF of the article, "Local Lawyers Putting Privacy Back Into Entertainment". You can find all the court documents on EFF's website, including the RIAA's failed Request for a Rehearing, a document that lays out their point of view, and EPIC has the decision. EPIC submitted an amicus brief in that case also. I take seriously what Peterson said, therefore. Here is some of what he had to say about the Novell-SCO conflict:
"Glenn Peterson, intellectual property attorney and shareholder with the Sacramento-based law firm McDonough Holland & Allen, summed up the status of the case: . . ."'The law is fairly clear that the judge must rule on the motion to remand first, because if remand to the state court is appropriate, it is the policy of law to let the state court determine whether dismissal is appropriate,' he said. That being the case, Peterson predicted, 'the motion to remand will be granted by Judge Kimball. It has long been a policy in common law that the "plaintiff is the master of its claims," meaning essentially that the plaintiff can tacitly shape its claims to suit its choice of forum.'" On page two of the article, he elaborates on the slander of title action and why they might have brought that instead of a breach of contract claim: "'SCO's "slander of title" claim muddies the waters a bit. No doubt, they didn't sue for breach of contract because they were not a party to the asset purchase agreement—SCO's predecessor in interest was the contracting party. But to have your title slandered, you must first have title; i.e., ownership on paper.'
"And that is something SCO doesn't have, according to Peterson. 'SCO tacitly admits that it didn't get the "ownership on paper" or "instrument of conveyance." In its prayer for relief, it specifically asks the court to order that Novell convey ownership to SCO.'
"This means, according to Peterson, 'the heart of the case is clearly about determining contractual rights, and state courts have jurisdiction to determine copyright ownership issues in a contractual context.'
"Whether SCO can win Unix's copyright in the state court remains to be seen but, Peterson said, 'the law generally favors SCO on these two motions,' so SCO is likely to get its day in the Utah court." So, they may win the two motions but then lose the war anyway, because they lack title and they goofed and asked the court to convey ownership to SCO, which is a way of admitting they don't presently have ownership. I fail to see how you can prove slander of title if you don't have title, but I'm wondering if they can lose that one and still get the relief they want, turning over the copyrights. Naturally, I hope Mr. Peterson is wrong, because I'd like to wrap this SCO story up and throw it in the garbage, but it's good to have a clear connection to reality at all times, and it is important to consider all possibilities.
And, once again, while it would definitely kill SCO's hopes of terrorizing the planet with lawsuits if it fails in the Novell case, it isn't a disaster if they prevail. IBM's case, for example, doesn't at all depend on whether or not Novell owns the copyrights or SCO does.
Because it's our anniversary, I thought it'd be fun to take a look back at Groklaw's first article about SCO. If you like statistics, we have had 919 articles in the last year. As you will see, Groklaw's position hasn't changed much. The IBM case is clearer than it was a year ago, but I am standing right where I started on the rest. Of course, the link to SCO is now broken. So much of what SCO used to have on their site has disappeared in the last year, along with their deep-divin' MIT analysts, but, despite all their effort, it hasn't done them much good. So, to commemorate our year together, and put it in perspective, here is the first Groklaw article on SCO:
As you likely have heard, SCO has hit IBM with a lawsuit, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, breach of contract and tortious interference with SCO's business.Why anyone cares, outside of IBM, is because SCO has now sent letters to commercial users of Linux, warning them that they may be liable for IP infringement, and it looks like it intends to go after RedHat and SUSE as well as IBM. Some have said that if SCO is successful in its litigation, "it could undermine one of the basic tenets of the open software movement, of which Linux has been the most successful example. Linux is a Unix derivative..." Pardon my curled lip. Regarding SCO's claims: First, Linux , the kernel, is not a "Unix derivative". It was written from scratch. Second, the Free Software Foundation's software is also all written from scratch, and they have a policy of replacing any contested code, as Gartner's has pointed out. Inexplicably, SCO has posted this Gartner's report on their web site, evidently not realizing that it points out the simple solution to any IP claims they may have against Linux, or GNU/Linux. Gartner says if you're worried about your code due diligence would include just checking with the Free Software Foundation. Here is what Richard Stallman said about the SCO claims in a very interesting series of articles on MozillaQuest Magazine, where he offers a simple fix -- just show the code SCO thinks is copied, and it'll be taken out and replaced: "If any AT&T-copyrighted code was copied into GNU, this occurred despite our continued efforts to prevent such copying. Our intention was to write code from scratch, and we have surely done so 99% of the time or more. If SCO can find code that was copied and is not fair use, they merely have to show it to us. We will take out the AT&T code and replace it." And here is what he said regarding FSF policy for programmers regarding Unix source code: "We made deliberate efforts to prevent copying of any Unix source code into the GNU system. We have had written recommendations for GNU developers since the 80s, telling them not to even look at Unix source code while writing GNU programs. I don't know whether the developers of Linux, the kernel, have stated such policies, but at least the GNU part of GNU/Linux should be safe."
Folks, GNU stands for "GNU's not Unix". For that matter, IBM has policies too. While I can't speak to the contract dispute between them and SCO, because all the facts regarding their dealings are not on the table yet, some of IBM's Linux kernel developers were interviewed on Slashdot, and they were specifically asked if they got to see the AIX source code, the code SCO claims was copied. Their answer makes it clear that IBM took steps to prevent it. Here's how they answered: "First of all, before any of us were allowed to contribute to Linux, we were required to take an 'Open Source Developers' class. This class give us the guidelines we need to participate effectively in the open source community -- both IBM guidelines and lessons learned about open source from others in IBM. We are definitely not allowed to cut and paste proprietary code into any open source projects (or vice versa!)"
What is so weird about the SCO position is it has avoided specifying exactly what code they claim is allegedly copied. They say they'll show it at trial, which is obviously a long way off. Meanwhile, they are causing a lot of PR damage." The Only Thing We Have to Fear Is...
Hmm... you don't suppose? ... How weirdly coincidental: Recently Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer said Linux "customers will never really know who stands behind this product." Why, that's exactly what SCO is saying in its complaint. It is known that SCO is having money troubles. Could it be... ?? Here's Linus Torvalds' reaction: "I don't personally think they have any IP rights on Linux, and I agree, it looks more like a suit over the contract rather than over Linux itself. I don't think they are going to win it (very very weak arguments, since at least from a technical perspective I don't think the IBM involvement has been that significant, and SCO was losing out _long_ before IBM started pushing Linux). However, my personal (maybe overly cynical) suspicion is that even _they_ don't think they'll win the suit, and it may be nothing more than a way to force IBM back into license discussions over UNIX itself."So I think that 100-day license revocation thing may actually be the most important part of the whole suit, and that the rest might be just the excuse. If I was SCO and looking at IBM, I'd have long since noticed that IBM has been talking about Linux taking over more and more of their current AIX usage, to potentially eventually replace it altogether. "So SCO sees IBM largely going away as a licensee in a few years - and while I certainly don't have any knowledge of how much that means for SCO, I would not be surprised if IBM licenses are quite a noticeable part of SCOs receivables. And what would you do? You want to get IBM back to the discussion table over licensing _before_ IBM starts to consider the UNIX licenses for AIX to be no longer worth it." Here's Bruce Perens: ""He's saying this stuff exists, but he's not willing to reveal it. Well, maybe we'll hear about this in court, but frankly, maybe we won't, because they'll try to seal it all....It sounds like he's trying to FUD Linux in general.... They should just show us what code they have problems with. We'll take a look at it or we'll just replace it. Keeping us in the dark is just silly." Red Hat: "Given that we have extensive legal resources put forth into making sure we respect the valid intellectual property rights of companies, we are not concerned with the statements that have been made...." Some more reactions and some more stories. The community has reacted point by point also. The consensus is that, while no one but the parties can yet know the true facts as to the contract dispute between IBM and SCO, as far as the Linux kernel is concerned, there probably isn't anything to fear but fear itself. And that, in a phrase, may be exactly what this is all about. Good Olde FUD takes another turn around the block. David Boies has agreed to represent SCO. I am trying to remind myself that our legal system is predicated on lawyers sometimes representing people they don't personally admire, and the system really does depend on someone being willing to take on unpopular clients. I know Boies doesn't use email, or at least he didn't the last time I checked. So maybe he doesn't quite get the tech ... ah, hang it all, there's no way around it: I feel bad he's chosen to represent them, especially after I posted an Ode singing his praises, and I hope he loses.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 07:57 AM EDT |
| Corrections in this thread, please, so I can find them easily. Thank you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Corrections Here Please. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 08:39 AM EDT
- Corrections Here Please. - Authored by: snorpus on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 09:26 AM EDT
- Corrections Here Please. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 10:20 AM EDT
- Corrections Here Please. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 10:25 AM EDT
- seeks/sees - Authored by: Ted Powell on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 11:09 AM EDT
- seeks/sees - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 04:05 PM EDT
- Corrections Here Please. - Authored by: stend on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 02:16 PM EDT
- About SCO asking for the copyrights... - Authored by: Khym Chanur on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 06:13 PM EDT
- Corrections Here Please. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 10:53 PM EDT
- one-year anniversary - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 12:07 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: drreagan on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 08:09 AM EDT |
| PJ, congratulations on making it through the first year. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 08:25 AM EDT |
We know that Groklaw is because of you PJ...
Thank-you, Thank-you, Thank-you!!!!
Your 7x24 writings, full of motivated inspiration, has kept us all togeather
thru these many months. When this all started with SCO..., it felt like we
LINUX users were all in the dark. We didn't know a stich about the law and many
of us did not know where to turn to find out! The regular reporters were
clueless (and a few still are)! We knew that this SCO stuff was FUD, but we
needed a forum, a place that this anti-FUD fight against SCO could call home...,
and then there was Groklaw! Groklaw is our home!
Groklaw has been the one site that has put it all in perspective. PJ, it is
your interest in the truth, your insight, and your dedication to this work...,
that is worthy of no less than the highest praise!
PJ, you are one Smarty Jones!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PSaltyDS on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 08:32 AM EDT |
Congratulations and happy anniversary, P.J.! I was going to say "Keep up
the good work", but I know you don't need me to tell you that!
:-)
P.S. Keep up the good work!
---
"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insuficiently advanced." - Geek's
Corrolary to Clarke's Law
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: digger53 on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 08:32 AM EDT |
Congrats to PJ & all th Groklawers.
I stumbled on this site not to long after I started using
Linux. I was horrified at the SCO suit, having just
escaped from the "Evil Empire." This immediately became a
place I visit daily, for moral support as it were. Not
particularly worried, now, yet I still visit, twice or
more, daily. I have learned quite a bit about the law,
UNIX and Linux here & have been intrigued into learning
more elsewhere. Thanks!
Re: MS's snide comments & finger pointing, It's been
pointed out to me that if I have one finger pointed at
you, there's three pointed back at me--my own! Has anyone
been dragged into court more often for infringement more
than MS? or paid more to settle?
---
"Who can rob us of out free will? No such man exists." Epictetus[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nick on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 08:52 AM EDT |
A very happy anniversary to Groklaw, both to PJ and to all the Groklawyers
who helped make this site what it is.
I remember when Groklaw was just a Radio weblog, and the small group of
readers there were in the beginning. Then the move to a new host -- and a
quick move again to iBiblio when the traffic became overwhelming. Really,
the growth in the early days was phenomenal. Groklaw dominated Radio.
I remember the first time Groklaw was mentioned on /., and how thrilling that
was. Now it happens every week and is more annoying than anything (in a
way) because it means yet-another-/.ing is in the works (again).
I remember the first interviews with PJ in the mainstream press, and now have
lost track of how many times it has happened.
I remember when IBM cited Groklaw in one of their court submissions.
From a standing start one year ago, and with no advertising of any kind,
depending entirely on word of mouth, Groklaw has grown into a force. And
the remarkable thing is that (despite the carping from the trolls), Groklaw's
tone is fundamentally the same today as it was in the beginning. We have
more knowledge now, and events have moved along, so stories have adapted
over time. But the tone remains the same, and that is because of PJ.
Thanks, PJ![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 09:01 AM EDT |
| PJ -- Congrats and much respect. The mind boggles at how much Karma you're
owed. :-)
Grokkers -- Amazing. What a bunch. Just... well, everybody
who's been here a while... you know what I'm saying. Just amazing. Well done
with the serious work and, by God, thanks for the laughs!
It will still be a
year or so before hindsight is 20-20, but one thing already certain is that
Groklaw was David to SCO's Goliath -- and you just go ahead and sue me, Mr
McBride, for pinching your favourite analogy.
Go you big red fire
engine!! :-)
Cheers,
Belzecue. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 09:07 AM EDT |
| Congratulations on your first anniversary with Groklaw, PJ! May you have many
more. You've certainly opened a lot of people's eyes to the workings of the law,
as well as keeping us informed on the SCO fiasco. It's very much
appreciated.
When I first heard about SCO suing IBM, my reaction was that it
was a bit crazy. After all, GNU was written from scratch, with meticulous care
to avoid copying Unix -- I knew that back in the mid-80s when I was on loan to
Bell Labs (which was where I learned Unix). I even used pieces of GNU that had
been ported to the Amiga -- wonderful stuff, but it was slightly uncomfortable
for me, since it's command syntax was slightly different from the various
AT&T flavors I'd been used to. Still, I got over that quickly and loved it.
One day I saw a Slashdot article about one of the legal documents being
posted to the web and clicked on the link, I discovered Groklaw and was hooked.
I've been here daily (and more) ever since. After all, where else can you not
only keep up to date with the SCO/IBM goings on, but get explanations of the
ramifications of the various legal maneuvers and even explanations put into
layman's terms.
All in all, you've done a wonderful job, and some of your
regular contributors (for whom you've provided a place to work) have capably
added to it.
Thanks, PJ.
Larry N. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 09:22 AM EDT |
From your first article:
"it could undermine one of the basic tenets of the open software movement,
of which Linux has been the most successful example. ..."
Linux is the opensource project that has had the most publicity in the
mainstream press. But to call it the most successful is at best open to
argument.
To take just one example, Apache has three times Microsoft's market share in its
field. How is Linux more successful than Apache?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 09:45 AM EDT |
I was hoping Novell would also argue diversity in getting contract issues into
federal court. Novell is headquartered in Waltham, Mass. Tarantella (old SCO) is
headquartered in California.
Maybe Novell thought this would be premature, but I would like someone to
disabuse me of the notion of diversity.
It seems to me that just because Novell has a large presence in Utah, that
doesn't make it a peculiarly Utah case. Yes, Novell was once headquartered in
Utah, but Tarantella, who negotiated the original contract, has always been in
California.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: snorpus on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 09:55 AM EDT |
| Congratulations, PJ!!!
Too often, "good things" fail to live up to their
promise, or evolve in unfavorable directions. E-Mail, intended as a means of
communication, has become a battle of wits of avoiding spam and viruses. Chat
rooms are taken over by sexual predators. The distribution of pornography is
reportedly the most profitable aspect of E-Commerce.
Then, every once in a
while, a site like Groklaw comes along.
The hours that PJ and others have
devoted to the cause are amazing. The research, the resourcefulness, the
networking with old colleagues who used to work with Unix, the first-hand
accounts... all are quite encouraging that, despite its flaws, the Internet
community can work together and really make a difference.
Congratulations to
All!!! ---
73/88 de KQ3T ---
Montani Semper Liberi [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Dave on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 10:29 AM EDT |
Hi PJ and all,
Congrats!
I'm a very occasional poster, but I've been a loyal reader of Groklaw from the
very beginning. Obviously, logic and truth have been on our side from day one,
but it's been an amazing experience watching the abilities of PJ, the site, and
its readership grow over this very hectic year. Court documents are obtained
and posted as text in hours or minutes. Stories here regularly accumulate as
many responses as on slashdot -- and that's after the trolls have been removed!
I think Groklaw is now viewed by the media as an (if not the) authoritative
source for information on this story.
It's been a heck of a year, filled with many wonderful achievements. Here's to
another!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brian on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 10:47 AM EDT |
Congrats PJ!
Although PJ gets the lion's share of credit I think a big
thank you needs to go to all those who have helped her
along like Frank, Mathfox, etc...Without their help PJ
would surely have collapsed from exhaustion. I do remember
lots of time when folks had to scream at PJ to get some
rest and even one time when I think she was coerced into
it.
Good job to the lot of you in keeping the FUD down and
preventing SCO from attaining their true goal....Stock
prices of I believe the figure was $45.00 US.
So again, congrats everyone!
B.
---
#ifndef IANAL
#define IANAL
#endif[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 10:50 AM EDT |
Thank you for bringing this wonderful site to us!
;)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: om1er on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 11:36 AM EDT |
PJ,
Congratulations on the One-Year Anniversary of Groklaw, and 919 Thank You's for
all the valuable articles.
I stand by my early e-mail to you that this is history in the making - the first
use of the Internet to interrupt a crime in progress. Perhaps a reason that
Darl and Blake are so quiet lately is that they finally "got it," and
now they're just waiting for the storm to blow over. It does appear that their
will to fight has been severely dampened.
I have kept coming back to this site because you have moderated the debate and
kept it out of the gutter. Often, some angry poster would flame away against SCO
with profanities, and you let it be known that such commentary was not
appropriate. That brought you my respect, and just look at all the other fans
it brought you, too.
The crude ranters either reformed, or left to annoy other people elsewhere.
Those were the people that SCO was trying to say composed the entire Free
Software community. For awhile, it looked like SCO could be right.
But, because of your civility, and knowledge of the legal process, this web-site
has shown that SCO's harsh broad-brush picture of GNU Linux users is quite
incorrect - you have shown that we are well-reasoned, thoughtful, generous
people, who have something valuable to offer to society, and who do not demand
royalties for every thought or line of code, but who do demand righteous
justice.
That is what is bringing SCO down. A thousand flames does not equal one
well-reasoned and researched article. Truth does prevail.
Thanks,
Sid
To the tune of "I Wish I Were an Oscar-Meyer Weiner.":
I'm glad I'm not an SCO attorney
That is what I'd never want to be-ee-ee
'Cause if I were an SCO attorney
Everyone would always laugh at me.
---
Are we there yet?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brooker on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 11:42 AM EDT |
A year!? Wow!
A year of having Groklaw with my morning coffee (and during my lunch break, and
after dinner, and one last check before I go to bed each night...and a few peeks
in between).
My oh my, how time flies when you're finding FUD!
(and squashing it!)
I would like to say thank you to PJ, and her crew of faithful helpers for making
it so much easier for ordinary folks like me to learn more about how the legal
world works.
It's all been an eye opener, indeed. Congratulations P.J., and thank you.
brooker
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gek on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 11:49 AM EDT |
Hi!
I was just wondering, what's up with grokdoc? I see the domain name was
registered, but didn't hear anything about it for a while.
So here's my question: Is grokdoc becoming reality anytime soon?
Greets,
Daniel[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Mario_Vanoni on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 11:55 AM EDT |
Really great, _GREAT_ PJ.
Many many thanks for your work.
Mario Vanoni from Switzerland[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 11:57 AM EDT |
Gratz on a good year.. Here's to the next bunch.
A minor nit-pick about a
quote:
Here's Linus Torvalds' reaction:
"...don't think
they'll win the suit, and it may be nothing more than a way to force IBM back
into license discussions over UNIX itself.
"So I think that 100-day license
revocation thing may actually be the most important part of the whole suit, and
that the rest might be just the excuse. If I was SCO and looking at IBM, I'd
have long since noticed that IBM has been talking about Linux taking over more
and more of their current AIX usage, to potentially eventually replace it
altogether.
"So SCO sees IBM largely going away as a licensee in a few
years - and while I certainly don't have any knowledge of how much that means
for SCO, I would not be surprised if IBM licenses are quite a noticeable part of
SCOs receivables......"
Since IBM's licence is irrevocable, and
paid in perpetutuity(sp?) This is a large failure of logic on Mr. Torvalds case.
1. IBM doesn't contribute on any basis to SCOG's receivables.
2. Any
company getting a yearly payable licence to SYS V pays their money to Novell.
SCOG acts as the collection agency and recieves 5% of the yearly licencing fee
for performing the task.
Minor points to be sure, but insinuating that IBM
switching over to Linux would casue a drop in SCOG's income is an out-right
falsehood. IBM dropping AIX wouldn't cost any licensor money. Then again, maybe
I'm confused by the "licence fully paid in perpetuity"
part.
------------------------------
Black - White ... Nah.. Gray
- Grey
ShadowHawk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ssavitzky on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 12:02 PM EDT |
Congratulations! Groklaw has been one of my favorite web-addictions for many
months now. Keep up the good work.
---
The SCO method: open mouth, insert foot, pull trigger.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 12:02 PM EDT |
| Reformatted and reposted to avoid provoking 'Hulk rage' in readers, due to
non-terminated green link text...
-----
Authored by: talks_to_birds on
Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 11:01 AM EDT
Please be aware that the "Robert X.
Cringely" you link to is in fact not the _real_ Robert X. Cringely, who is found
on www.pbs.org at www.pbs.org/cringely/about/
It's rather a long story, but the real Robert X. Cringely wrote the column
still found on InfoWorld, and now still written under his name by some faceless
individual who has changed several times over these many years:
"...For eight years from 1987-95, Robert X. Cringely wrote
the Notes From the Field column in InfoWorld, a weekly computer trade
newspaper..."
"...On the Existence of Other Cringelys
Through a cruel
twist of fate having to do with federal judges and unscrupulous lawyers there
is, for the moment, more than one Robert X. Cringely. You are right now reading
the one true Cringely, author, raconteur, TV personality, and pizza delivery
specialist. The "other" Cringely writes a column on the back page of InfoWorld,
a weekly PC trade rag. That Cringely is really a woman, while I am an
agnostic..."
For those of us who went through all that
happened to the real Robert X. Cringely (I was an InfoWorld subscriber, and
cancelled my subscription specifically because of what happened...), this is a
very important distinction that must not be forgotten...
t_t_b
---
Mad cow? You'd be mad, too, if someone was trying to eat
you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Clay on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 12:19 PM EDT |
Maybe this whole experience was like a vaccine that makes you cough for a few
days. If the SCO history protects us from Redmond then it was all worth it.
Clay
---
newObjectivity, Inc. supports the destruction
of all software patents.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 12:35 PM EDT |
First Kudos to PJ for this great site! Congrats on your one year
anniversity.
Also Kudos to Burt Rutan for the achievement of building the
"WhiteKnight", and "SpaceShipOne". Here is his
site:
[url]http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/New_Index/body.htm[/url]
Of
note is this effort is funded by MS cofounder Paul Allen,.... look at the flight
notes
here:
[url]http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/New_Index/flight_data/flt_data
.htm[/url]
Note that while the flight was successful, the flight avionics had to
be "rebooted" ..... hmmmm..... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 12:38 PM EDT |
| and Thank You. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: chaz_paw on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 12:41 PM EDT |
PJ,
Happy anniversary to you and Groklaw! Your insight, knowledge, endurance, and
all the other good qualities you possess have had a positive influence on
thousands of people. Of this you should be very proud.
I also would like to thank all of Groklaw's aides,assistants, and readers who
make this such a great place to learn and have fun.
Charles
---
United we stand.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TomWiles on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 12:45 PM EDT |
With regard to Glenn Peterson's comments.
His points are well taken, and this could very well wind up in state court.
Assuming it does, and SCO gets the rights to UNIX that NOVELL holds, where does
this leave the court.
If the court is going to transfer copyright from NOVELL to SCO, the court is
going to have to determine what copyrights NOVELL actually holds.
First, UNIX SYSTEM III was released without copyright.
Secoond, UNIX SYSTEM V was a colaborative work between Cory hall (University of
California) and AT&T with the majority of the work being done at Cory Hall.
Third, About 1985 UNIX SYSTEM V split into AT&T SYSTEM V and Berkeley UNIX.
Cory Hall released Berkeley Unix with the AT&T contributions to SYSTEM V
removed (rewritten).
Fourth, AT&T challenged the openness of Berkeley UNIX in court (circa 1990)
claiming Berkeley UNIX had copyright infringement and was a derivative work.
AT&T did not WIN this case. It was dismissed with prejudice on both sides
and some sort of secrete - undisclosed - agreement.
Fifth, the court ruled (and both sided agreed) that a derivative of Berkeley
UNIX, BSD-Lite, was free of all copyright claims. There was a caviat here:
There was an agreement that some files in BSD-Lite would contain an AT&T
copyright, but AT&T relinquished all ownership rights to those files. The
files referred to were never identified,and (to my knowledge-as far as I know)
no file in BSD-Lite ever contained such a copyright notice.
What is being overlooked is that AT&T never owned the copyright to UNIX
SYSTEM V. What AT&T did own was the copyright (IP) to the work they
contributed to the joint project (as Berkeley owned the copyright to their
contribution). When there was a falling out between the University of
California and AT&T, each side went its own way. During the 1990 court case
it was demonstrated that neither side kept records, or a log of its work.
Neither side had made a copyright filing with the Copyright Office. Neither
side could prove what was theirs, and what belong to the other party.
When the University of California split with AT&T, they identified about 10%
of the UNIX SYSTEM V code that they believed belonged to AT&T, and removed
that code from Berkeley UNIX.
I have no idea what those files were, but it seems likely that those files, and
those files only, were the IP transfered from AT&T to NOVELL.
Now the real fun part is that AT&T may not have know which files Cory Hall
rewrote, and it appears that Cory Hall has not kept records either. Since no
copyright filing was made by AT&T (as far as I know), how is SCO going to
provide proof of original authorship even if they could somehow identify which
files were involved.
What I am pointing out is that ownership of AT&T's IP rights to UNIX SYSTEM
V may not mean much. SCO seems to place a great deal of faith in the derivative
work clause of the copyright law. The problem is, derivative of WHAT. They can
not argue UNIX in general because UNIX SYSTEM V was a derivative work of UNIX
SYSTEM III which was in the public domain!!
SCO could claim that a particular contribution was a derivative work of one of
the AT&T owned contributions, but SCO does not know what AT&T actually
contributed.
In 1990, the court system could not unscramble the ownership dispute when the
two parties involved were the principle parties (AT&T and the University of
California). How is the court going to unscramble it now.
LINUX was an original work. The closest derivative link to LINUX would probably
be POSIX. As far as I can see, there is no possible way to establish a
derivative link between POSIX and any part of UNIX SYSTEM V that AT&T might
have owned.
Where this whole exercise may be fun, fun, fun. Where watching the Larry, Moe,
and Curley act out this little play in court is certainly going to be
enlightening and entertaining, the real and only significant question (what IP
property in UNIX SYSTEM V is actually under copyright) is not even being
addressed. Considering the ambiguous result of the 1990 case, I am not sure
that that question can be addressed. If you can not prove ownership, then you
have no rights!!
Tom
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tredman on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 12:54 PM EDT |
You know, something has always bugged me about the SCO/Novell case. Everybody's
biggest argument is how can SCO hold copyrights to UNIX when they're tacitly
asking for Novell to transfer them? My biggest feeling is that we're not
talking about the copyrights mentioned (and excluded) in the APA and its
children.
Just before the lawsuit, and one of the things that precipitated the action in
the first place, Novell and SCO simultaneously applied for copyrights in UNIX
code. If Novell doesn't own the copyrights to UNIX, then they were improperly
applied for (hence slander of title), and these newly registered rights are what
SCO is asking for. If Novell does indeed own the copyrights to UNIX, why
reregister them? Of course, you could use the same argument about SCO, since
they did exactly the same thing.
What, if any, legal recourse does it give you to reregister a copyright if you
already own it? This is something that I never fully understood.
I'm a Linux junkie and a member of the open source faithful, but this has gnawed
at me since it started.
Happy Birthday, Groklaw, and congrats PJ. You must be an awfully proud mama to
see what your baby's become.
Tim[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lamcrae on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 12:57 PM EDT |
Congratulations PJ - for a job exceptionally well done. Your efforts are
appreciated.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 01:16 PM EDT |
"I think the truth, as usual, isn't in the headlines, and that it's
somewhere in between those two extremes." PJ
It's somewhere between the two extremes only because the annihiliation of SCOG
and Canopy is still a work in progress. Looking back one year, is SCOG closer to
achieving its goals or is it us who are closer to achieving our goals?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 01:29 PM EDT |
Glenn Peterson predicts that SCOG will win on both its motions, and I derived
the opposite conclusion through my own analysis. We shall get to see who gets to
eat crow in short order. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: CraigV on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 01:30 PM EDT |
Thank you so much PJ, I am in awe of your energy and
intelligence!
I eagerly await a book about all this written by you
when the dust settles. It will fit nicely on my shelf
along with Steven Levy's "Hackers" and Glyn Moody's "Rebel
Code." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Weeble on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 01:34 PM EDT |
I noted PJ's "Pardon my curled lip" comment after a quote including
the phrase "Linux is a Unix derivative...".
From what I've read in my months here, I'm fully aware that Linux is not a
derivative of Unix in the legal, copyright sense of code dependency. I'm
satisfied with the reports of studies (like SGI's Comparator run) that conclude
there's no encumbered Unix code in Linux.
However, just the fact that Linux is described as "Unix-like", does
make it a derivative in the sense of being a "knockoff" or
"work-alike", and that people with Unix skill sets can adjust to it
with very little trouble. It has a similar interface, similar ways of doing
things, code has been used from BSD-license sources as well as from clean-room
implementations of public Unix specs, IBM (and others, presumably) have readily
modified their independently-developed Unix code (from AIX and Dynix/ptx) for
use in Linux, so in a popular sense of "derivative", Linux does fill
the bill.
When I owned a Ford Pinto (which I nicknamed "a rolling course in
automotive mechanics"), I noted that other car manufacturers produced
"derivatives" of the Pinto such as AMC's Spirit, Plymouth's TC3 and a
few others. There's probably not a bit of Ford IP in those vehicles (and
probably for the better), but I'm sure that the Pinto was in their minds when
they were developed.
Getting back to computers, Linus Torvalds designed his OS as a work-alike of
Unix, not VMS, not MS-DOS, not the Mac System software or the early versions of
Windows, and certainly not the Radio Shack TRS-80's TRSDOS or any of the many
TRSDOS "derivatives" (LDOS, DOSPLUS, MultiDOS, etc.) that were out.
Linux *is* a CONCEPT derivative of Unix. Even DMcB (before he went fully to the
Dark Side) admitted that (and I've been trying to find that quote without
success).
So while I accept the need to make sure that it's understood that Linux is NOT a
*technical* derivative of Unix, it *is* a concept derivative of Unix.
---
IANBAHD--I Ain't Nothin' But A Hound Dog (A Smart One, Tho).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- So What's Linux a Derivative Of? TRSDOS? - Authored by: dbc on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 01:42 PM EDT
- Multics - Authored by: gdeinsta on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 02:47 PM EDT
- So What's Linux a Derivative Of? TRSDOS? - Authored by: Nick Bridge on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 02:56 PM EDT
- OK, I'll play your game... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 08:28 PM EDT
- So What's Linux a Derivative Of? TRSDOS? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 08:50 AM EDT
- That doesn't matter. - Authored by: billyskank on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 12:14 PM EDT
- So What's Linux a Derivative Of? TRSDOS? - Authored by: TomWiles on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 02:18 PM EDT
- Unless I mistake you, totally and completely wrong. - Authored by: CPD on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 04:10 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Nick Bridge on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 02:02 PM EDT |
I believe that Groklaw has had an effect that I am surprised at, to say the
least:
The general level of reporting (outside Groklaw) has been improving.
I'm sure it's a direct result of PJ presenting all the facts, sources, and
dissecting untrue claims and bad reporting.
Thank You PJ, and Thankyou Groklawyers
BTW Rob Enderle is still waffling - he is so totally clueless it's unreal, and
it shows. Maybe Enderle could become an eponym: enderle (v): To waffle
endlessly without a clue.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 02:03 PM EDT |
| SCO's VP of Engineering left the company and sold 100% of his shares.
That was the point that I really believed SCO had no case -- after all, who
would know better than he about the origin of the code? If he had believed,
would he have sold all his stock? ---
-----
For a few laughs, see "Simon's Comic Online Source" at http://scosource.com/ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Marc Nadeau on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 02:31 PM EDT |
Sure, Groklaw supports a valuable cause to me.
I am a web developper and a Linux user.
Groklaw is also the perfect example of how internet and collaborative thinking
may help defending a good cause.
People that fight for other important topics like environment or justice or
peace or whatever will make this world better should follow Groklaw's example.
P.J. initiated some kind of sociologic phenomenon. I wish to see more of these
in the future.
Happy birthday to all of us.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jmc on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 02:42 PM EDT |
Happy anniversary to Groklaw.
I'd wish many more but I wish the reason for many more wasn't there.
I'm sure that SCO will have gone completely belly up, its claims totally
defeated in the courts and elsewhere by the time the next anniversary comes
round.
But the FUD - mostly from M$ - will be there - with its gloves off - in a year's
time. Software patents will be the next big issue. M$ want them, the EU, after
administering the tap on the wrist, are now playing into their hands. The EU
parliament is about to be re-elected - I got the polling cards last week - and
it isn't too high on the candidate's priorities at least those who've bothered
to contact me to solicit my vote - precisely zero so far.
The next enemies won't be so obviously wrong as SCO. They'll be harder to fight.
It'll take longer. They won't go bust. The arguments they raise won't be
defeated so quickly. If you thought the courts were slow with SCO wait (and wait
and wait) until they start arguing with M$.
But raise your glasses to Groklaw today - and hope the community spirit keeps
rolling fprwever.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DaveAtFraud on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 02:59 PM EDT |
PJ quotes Glenn Peterson as saying:
'SCO's "slander of title"
claim muddies the waters a bit. No doubt, they didn't sue for breach of contract
because they were not a party to the asset purchase agreement—SCO's predecessor
in interest was the contracting party. But to have your title slandered, you
must first have title; i.e., ownership on paper.'
"And that is something SCO
doesn't have, according to Peterson. 'SCO tacitly admits that it didn't get the
"ownership on paper" or "instrument of conveyance." In its prayer for relief, it
specifically asks the court to order that Novell convey ownership to
SCO.'
"This means, according to Peterson, 'the heart of the case is clearly
about determining contractual rights, and state courts have jurisdiction to
determine copyright ownership issues in a contractual context.'
"Whether SCO
can win Unix's copyright in the state court remains to be seen but, Peterson
said, 'the law generally favors SCO on these two motions,' so SCO is likely to
get its day in the Utah court."
So lets just say that Judge
Kimball grants the motion to remand. Novell then files an only slightly
different motion to dismiss citing TSCOG's own complaint in that their prayer
for relief asks that the copyrights be granted to SCO thus clearly indicating
that the title to the copyrights is in question and blowing any "Slander of
Title" claim out of the water. I would think this would put us right back to
square one with Novell claiming that they still hold the copyrights to Unix but
with no court decision. Besides TSCOG's prayer for relief, TSCOG's "Slander of
Title" complaint has way too many holes in it (required elements for "Slander of
Title") to go anywhere.
Admittedly, TSCOG can file an ammended complaint
once the case is remanded that substitutes a different claim for their curent
"Slander of Title" complaint but I see an infinte loop ahead. Any ammended
complaint that looks to find the APA is an instrument of conveyance will get a
motion to remove from Novell. This may be sufficient for SCO's strategy but I
would think Novell would want to get the issue settled (to say nothing of Red
Hat and Autozone).
---
Quietly implementing RFC 1925 wherever I go. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 03:02 PM EDT |
David Boies has agreed to represent SCO. I am trying to remind
myself that our legal system is predicated on lawyers sometimes representing
people they don't personally admire, and the system really does depend on
someone being willing to take on unpopular clients. I know Boies doesn't use
email, or at least he didn't the last time I checked. So maybe he doesn't quite
get the tech ... ah, hang it all, there's no way around it: I feel bad he's
chosen to represent them, especially after I posted an Ode singing his praises,
and I hope he loses.
My understanding (IANAL) is the lawyer
shouldn't be overly concerned with the rights & wrongs of a case, more that
his client is treated fairly. This is more obvious in a criminal case (eg
defending in a homicide case), but still applies here. The Lawyer should take
the clients case at face value, then acting in good faith has to present the
case in the appropriate way for the legal system.
There are of course lawyers
who overstep the mark - some of the ambulance chaser & libel lawyers do seem
to encourage ridiculous claims. I can't see any specific wrong doing from the
legal team here. - they are just working with very poor material.
Happy
Birthday Groklaw.
Mike[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hardcode57 on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 03:06 PM EDT |
PJ, here's a little snippet of something I wrote to the Yahoo SCOX message board
about you a little while back:
'She's (thats you) started a whole new model of open co-operative legal research
which complements FOSS nicely, but has much wider social and political impact,
in that the same model can be adopted by a wide range of advocacy groups who
don't generally have the financial muscle to take on big players where there
isn't a decent size payout by way of contingency fees at the end of the road.'
PJ, I believe that in Groklaw you've created a proof-of-concept on how the
Internet can be used by those without great resources to combine to thwart the
greed of those who do. I believe that when my son is my age, he will be able to
take for granted that major corporations can't get away with hiding under the
stone of expensive Public Relations and Legal teams, because those stones can
always be lifted by a lot of people,working together, and well led.
That's why I'm proud to be, even periferally, a member of this community that
you've started.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 03:40 PM EDT |
Personally, I think Groklaw has become more than just the SCO issue, like
Slashdot, to keep us informed about the latest in 'stuff that matters to us'
Groklaw fills the role of handling all our legal issues from this point on. So
in other words PJ, I'm sorry but you can't leave us once this SCO issue is
settled, this will have to become your full time career :-)
You will have to lead the crusade to help us fight, future aggressions
against Linux and opensource, we will when this battle with SCO, but sadly the
war has just begun...
From the bottom of my heart, I seriously wish to thank you
PJ for all your efforts.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: shareme on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 03:46 PM EDT |
I seem to recal an earlier case where Boise seem to use email..
Or am I confuisng Boise's?
---
Sharing and thinking is only a crime in those societies where freedom doesn't
exist.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RedBarchetta on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 04:15 PM EDT |
"The Master sees things as they are,
without trying
to control them.
She let's them go their own way,
and resides at the
center of the circle." - Lao
tzu
---
Collaborative efforts synergise. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RyanEpps on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 04:17 PM EDT |
PJ,
Congratulations on the anniversary. IANAL or programmer but just a happy user
of Linux. I can't tell you how much I'm enjoying the education and humor from
your site. I check the site several times a day. I have little to contribute
other than meager funds to help maintain the site. Keep up the good work.
Thanks to you and all the contributors to this site!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RedBarchetta on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 04:34 PM EDT |
I nominate we send PJ on the 'MySQL Swell' geek cruise. It's based on
the Eastern Mediterranean (Italy, Greece, Turkey, Croatia).
Or, if PJ
prefers the sun and sand, how about the 'Smokin on the Water' cruise, based on a
tour of the Eastern Caribbean (Florida, Bahamas, US and British Virgin
Islands).
While I love sun and sand, I've been there, done that. I
have yet to see Europe at all, so I'd personally pick the MySQL Swell. I will
personally donate $40 for PJ's vacation when we get organized enough, and
the collection plate comes around.
---
Collaborative efforts
synergise. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- MySQL Swell - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 06:27 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: icebarron on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 05:27 PM EDT |
Happy anniversary PJ, for almost a year now I have both read and commented in
several of your articles. I consider you to be a very ethical, and thoughtful
writer. I am a fan and hope that you will continue writing here long after sco
is put out to pasture. THIS is the true meaning and heart of open/honest
communications. Thank you so much for your dedication.
Dan
I have revisted old friends and old opsys's for over a year. Now I fully
remember why I got into this business in the first place.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: m_si_M on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 05:52 PM EDT |
On anniversary it should be mentioned again that an article on Groklaw has found
its way into Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groklaw
---
C.S.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nick_UK on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 05:56 PM EDT |
Good job, PJ.
I think I can safely say Growlaw will be around a bit longer than SCO in recent
history. :)
Many thanks for the otherwise unknown aspect into the legalise of such things
and making it accessible to all.
Nick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 06:00 PM EDT |
..what??? She's not invited yet??? <mean drill sarge
chew out growl/>Get yer darn act together!!! ;-)
..on a more serious note, amassing that many vig's on a
cruise ship in these warridden times, invites a risk of
being osterø'ed; Having seen what kinda power Groklaw
yields, and wields, on TSCOG and Microsoft, and knowing
the Washington Post put a lot fewer on Watergate 1, and
knowing how the 6000 registred Groklawyers and just how
many more un-registred keep digging up new stuff every
minute, perpetrators would be prudent to assume that acts
such as election fraud and coup d'etat will be uncovered,
if there is a conceivable link to TSCOG or Microsoft.
..osterøing the geek cruise, "might" be a "handy way" of
letting al-Quaeda, or "al-Quaeda", help say Microsoft get
away with such wee acts as getting rid of another PJ,
Judge Penfield Jackson, and help "prove a Strong Leader",
or "Proprietary Software", or the case of Norwegians,
"EU membership, is Needed to Prevent The Disaaaster".
..norwegian Hans Christian Osterø (Osteroe*) toured India
in 1995. Near the Kashmir region, he and 5 other people
was kidnapped. One managed to escape, the other 4 was
eventually released, and, well, the Norwegian Dept. of
State insisted Norway is such a _small_ country, so the
locals first found his body and then his head.
..(* ø in utf-8 and iso8859-1 = oe in ascii = ø
in htmlese, sounds like the "i" vocal in "bird".) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ExcludedMiddle on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 06:01 PM EDT |
PJ, I want to add my voice to the chorus of thanks to you for this site, and
everything that you're doing for Free and Libre Open Source software.
I am a hopeless Groklaw addict. I read it multiple times a day, and comment when
time allows. Your analysis, and in particular your meticulous research is not
only entertaining, it has kept the community aware of what these twists and
turns really mean and has surprisingly changed the course of these lawsuits.
Discussions are primarily about the facts and arguments of the case, and that is
rare.
Although SCO and others have depended on FUD, obfuscation, and trickery, you
have changed the basis of the discussion to logic and truth. It's not often
mentioned, but perhaps the crown of your achievement is that you have avoided
the acrimony that dominated the early debate about this lawsuit, and you have
not stood for it in the discussions on Groklaw.
Keep up the good work. And, again, thank you![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tydyed on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 06:01 PM EDT |
Thank you PJ,
For a year of legal education reguarding patents, copyrights and SCO in
particular. But, for me at least, I must thank you for so much more. I have
appreciated GNU/Linux and open source software in general for a very very long
time. You have helped to show me that appreciation and use of open source
software is not enough. If we, as developers, or simple users of computer
technology fail to get involved more directly we risk losing the freedoms we all
enjoy. Just as early patriots and our founding fathers, had to become involved
in the fight for the freedoms we all enjoy today in order to preserve the way of
life we all sometimes take for granted, so we all need to become activiely
involved in our freedoms to use, modify, and improve the software some of us, me
included, have taken for granted.
Over the course of the "year of Groklaw" I have come to understand
that free (as in speech) software is vital and that we need to insist on
standards the foster it's growth. I have come to understand the difference
between software that may, for the moment, be free as in beer (java) vs software
(kaffe) that is free as in speech and how important it is to support the
latter.
Thank you for raising my awareness and stirring me to take a more active part in
seeing the FLOSS software movement advanced. This has been an eye opening year
for me in many ways.
TyDyed, formerly JavaJedi...
---
An older member of the "GNU" generation![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: wharris on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 06:19 PM EDT |
Congratulations and happy birthday!
I found Groklaw through one of the earliest mentions on Slashdot, when it
was part of RadioLog and have followed it closely (almost every day) ever
since. At the time, I was extremely frustrated because although I knew that
open source programmers were profressionals, 100% of the media were
talking about how Darl was civilizing the wilderness and bringing the rule of
law to the intellectual wasteland of open source software. But then I read PJ's
articles, and she calmly, insightfully, and witily showed how SCO's claims
were legally dubious at best. PJ brought a legal perspective to the mess which
was wholy absent from coverage up to that point.
Thank you, Pamela Jones, and here's a virtual toast to many more sucessful
years of Groklaw! <glug><glug><glug>
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 06:44 PM EDT |
Congratulations and a
Happy New Year!!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jonathan on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 06:46 PM EDT |
Hi,
I just wanted to say a big thanks to PJ and everyone else at Groklaw who makes
it the great place it is. I've been quietly reading for the larger part of the
past year, and it's been amazing to see the how the philosiphy behind FOSS
translates so well to other fields, e.g. law. The idea of open source and Free
software just made sense when I was introduced to them and Groklaw, amongst
other things, has led to me becoming a lot more passionate about it - enough to
give over some of my time to writing free/open source software (that is, the
time that studing for a degree leaves you with). As for posting here, maybe
I'll try and find some words to contribute in the next year, though I'm much
more at home staring at Perl/C/whatever I'm writing at 2AM in the morning,
wondering why lectures have to start at 9AM, than I am with the legal sutff.
Nevertheless, I believe that it's important to know what's going on in the
community, and this has been a great place to learn about that.
OK, you're probably bored of my waffle now. :-)
Thanks all - take care,
Jonathan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 07:32 PM EDT |
A Year of Groklaw! Wow!
Thanks PJ...
Its been
a blast!
---
Oxymoron of the day is … “SCO's Ethics”
LOL!
I dare you to say it and not laugh!!!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 09:26 PM EDT |
The quality of Groklaw aside, the year of SCO has been the year of biggest waste
in the history of free software, I'm sure. How many hours did free software
developers waste on reading various stuff related to SCO's frivolous lawsuits?
If only one minute of every one of those hours was used to write free software,
we could have had Linux kernel 3.4 out already ;-)
Seriously, Groklaw is a great site and I read it every day (only proves the
point I'm making above :-), but SCO should be ashamed for causing so much
"downtime" over absolutely nothing. At present, the original 1 - 1.5
million lines of stolen code turned out to be _nothing_. Not a single copyright
infrigement lawsuit (in relation to Linux) and not a single line of code
identified as "stolen". Just your garden variety _FUD_.
Great work PJ, keep it up![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 09:46 PM EDT |
Congratulations PJ on a stellar year. It's my anniversary also so I had to
sneak in here and write this.
I hate to imagine where we would be without you. You put them on the Ropes.
We'll happily help you count them out. You have put together a marvelous tool.
You have opened up the courts. Thanks for the opportunity to participate.
---
webster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tangomike on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 09:58 PM EDT |
Over at Lamlaw, there's a quite different view of the TSCOG vs Novell suit:-
there will be a denial of remand and a dismissal.
Mr. Peterson's credentials are impressive, but the excerpts from the article
make his argument appear contradictory. He says that TSCOG has tacitly admitted
they don't have the copyrights, so it will be remanded. I think the court would
have to rule that there is that admission, which makes it a copyright decision,
doesn't it? So the court rules on the copyright aspect and finds TSCOG don't
have it, by their own filing.
Secondly, if they have tacitly admitted it, they don't have standing to bring a
slander of title suit, so it gets remanded and tossed.
Either way, they lose; it just takes longer in the second case.
It looks to me like Mr. Peterson should read Groklaw before he does interviews.
---
To The SCO Group - please come back when you pass a Turing test.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: inode_buddha on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 10:09 PM EDT |
| Now that GrokLaw is part of my daily reading schedule, it's time to reflect a
bit. I was never very interested in law before. I'm very interested
now.
Groklaw has made IP law much more accessible and easier to follow, at
least for me.
I never seriously thought that FOSS would be challenged in the
way that it is; I was wrong. Mainly, I underestimated and misunderstood the
things that people will do. After all, why would anybody want to attack what is
(quite often) charitable work? For me, the brilliance of GrokLaw is in the way
it "Open Sources" the legal and business process: I don't claim to have any real
understanding of those, I don't know the words, the definitions, or the
implications. But thanks to GrokLaw, at least now I have a fighting chance. By
the way, I *love* this quote: "The ferocity of SCO's opponents seems to be just
one of its miscalculations. . . ." This isn't the first time I've seen that
sort of ferocity, but it *is* the first time I've seen it applied and directed
like this. As a Linux user, it just goes with the territory,
IMHO. Congratulations, happy anniversary! ---
"When we speak of free
software, we are referring to freedom, not price." -- Richard M. Stallman [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 10:13 PM EDT |
"'The law is fairly clear that the judge must rule on the motion
to remand first, because if remand to the state court is appropriate, it is the
policy of law to let the state court determine whether dismissal is
appropriate,' he said. That being the case, Peterson predicted, 'the motion to
remand will be granted by Judge Kimball. It has long been a policy in common law
that the "plaintiff is the master of its claims," meaning essentially that the
plaintiff can tacitly shape its claims to suit its choice of
forum.'"
The man could be right, but that doesn't mean a
whole lot more, except for old and proven SCO agenda: delay. If this
thing does get kicked back into the state court, none of the four elements of
"slander of title" SCO has to prove exist. The APA between oldSCO and Novell is
so badly written that it could go either way (I can't believe these people paid
millions of dollars for "something" and the contract didn't properly identify
what for). The quote from APA that SCO have on their web
site:
"All rights and ownership of UNIX and UnixWare,
including but not limited to all versions of UNIX and UnixWare and all copies of
UNIX and UnixWare (including revisions and updates in process), and all
technical, design, development, installation, operation and maintenance
information concerning Unix and UnixWare, including source code, source
documentation, source listings and annotations, appropriate engineering
notebooks, test data and test results, as well as all reference manuals and
support materials normally distributed by Seller to end-users and potential
end-users in connection with the distribution of UNIX and
UnixWare,..."
The above would lead you to believe that they
in fact have the copyrights. After all, copyright is property, so when the text
says: "All rights and ownership of UNIX and UnixWare [...]", one would
think that would include copyrights too. But, after reading the actual schedule
1.1(b)V(A) (excluded assets), which goes like
this:
A. All copyrights and trademarks, except for the [...]
copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the Agreement
required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX
and UnixWare technologies. However, in no event shall Novell be liable to SCO
for any claim brought by any third party pertaining to said copyrights and
trademarks.
It isn't clear any more, is it? It looks like
the "all rights and ownership" refers merely to the actual source code,
manuals, books etc., but not necessarily copyrights. Except for the ones
"required [...] to exercise rights", whatever that might mean. Remember, the
language of a contract (and 204(a) writing) has to be exact - phrases like
"Novell shall give copyrights of Unix to SCO", "SCO shall pay such and such
amount for Unix copyrights" are usually used. Nothing like that seems to appear
here - the judge may be tempted to see these as illusory promises - something
that may happen, depending on someone's choice. Illusory promises cannot be
enforce, another obstacle for SCO.
And to be clear that one can sell
just the source, the ownership of copyright is distinct from ownership of the
meterial object: Copyright Act, section
202. In the world of free software, getting a copy of the source doesn't
mean a whole lot more, but in the world of proprietary software, getting it
means a difference between having a business or not. I know of companies that
paid millions of dollars to get their hands on the source code of applications
that were far more trivial than Unix System V or UnixWare (heck, they were
written in Cobol). So, when Darl says: "What did we buy if not copyrights?"
Well, most likely (almost unlimited) licence to have the source code and do with
it as you see fit (also the actual licence fee collecting
business).
Very, very tough for SCO. And what's more, proving ownership
of copyrights in Unix isn't going to give them any more power against IBM or
anyone else. After all, there is not a single copyright infringement lawsuit in
relation to Linux at present. Lots of talk, no action. And if they think they
can somehow prove that they own JFS, RCU, NUMA etc., I think they must be
kidding themselves. No sane person is going to fall for anything like
that.
Overall, the whole charade is more about nuissance, distraction
and FUD than any real cause of action. But, you don't need me to tell you that
:-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 10:30 PM EDT |
| PJ had an article some time back referring to a survey done by W2Knews (Link).
Here's a choice quote...
You can see
how important this is. Will the gorilla turn again and squash a bunch of its
partners and at the same time make a whole bunch of customers unhappy about
having spent money, or will they honor their initial promise that the IMF is
only for large customers that participate in the Software Assurance program? You
can only ask yourself how come these kinds of decisions are made, is it
arrogance, stupidity, shortsightedness or all of the above? We'll see at Tech.Ed
how Redmond will treat its third party software ecosystem. As for me, I
understand more and more why people start running Linux. Redmond
simply can't be trusted to keep its word it seems.
Emphasis
mine. It's from the Editor's Corner called "Why is Microsoft Killing its
Partners".
Here's the link to W2KNews
Ouch! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 11:32 PM EDT |
You could name your first-born child "PJ" :-)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ws on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 11:47 PM EDT |
This gem by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution was
found on COLA.
This has to be a MS reaction to the
dying case:
Yahoo News Link
Brown writes, "Over the
years, many have envied the
startling and pervasive success of Unix. For
almost thirty
years, programmers have tried and failed to successfully
build a Unix-like system and couldn't. To this day, we
have a
serious attribution problem in software development
because people have
chosen to scrupulously borrow or
imitate Unix."
Of course, this conveniently doesn't mention that MS too,
"borrows" stuff, like oh, the whole TCP stack from
BSD.
Cheers,
WS [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sbungay on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 11:50 PM EDT |
Congratulations PJ and Happy Birthday Groklaw! The past year has been truly
enlightening, lets keep the light shining.
---
Programmer: A red eyed mumbling mamal that converses with inanimate objects.
IANAL IAAP[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bobn on Sunday, May 16 2004 @ 11:52 PM EDT |
I've found some decisions and explanations of decisions using similar language
to what paterson uses:
First, since the plaintiff is ‘the master
of the complaint,’ the well-pleaded-complaint rule enables him, “by eschewing
claims based on federal law...to have the cause heard in state
court."
http://www.depo.com/festo.htm
(Igonoring the "well-pleaded fpart for
the moment.) In my view: SCO's problem: the APA must *both* be a valid contract
*and* be a valid conveyance of copyright. The first is a state issue (can it be
a federal issue t00, eg companies in different states w/ a contract dispute?),
the second is a federal issue. Since failing *either* scuttles SCO's case,
either a state or federal judge could conceivably say "you lose", though it
should require a federal judge (or both) to say "you win". [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sam on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 12:01 AM EDT |
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA417981?display=Top+of+the+Week
"But the odds-makers aren't the only ones trying to make money
off the show. In March, the Federal Trade Commission lowered the boom on
Telemarketing Inc., a Utah firm trying to cash in on misdialed American Idol
votes. According to the settlement in which the company was forced to pay
$40,000 in fines, an astonishing 25,000 callers dialed the wrong number.
Prior to the show, Telemarketing bought phone numbers similar to those for Idol,
then told viewers who misdialed that they had to call a second 900 number to
actually place their "vote." The fees for those "votes" ranged from $1.99 to
$2.97 per call."
I could go on forever about all of our
penny stock scams. I fear another is about to be added to the list with a symbol
of scox or thereabouts.
---
Don't forget. IAAL. (I am a layman.) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 01:27 AM EDT |
Actually a couple of months before SCO started their attack, microsoft (maybe
ballmer), spoke out saying something to the effect that We have a plan, which
will take care of the Linux problem!
I just remembered that a couple of days ago.
He felt very sure about having it under control and the tone was one of those
comments you throw back at someone as you board a plane or something, trying to
end on a plus point.
I should try to dig that up. At the time I just figured it was PR. Trying to
look good. But then the SCOundrils went and pee'd in their own soup...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: anwaya on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 01:35 AM EDT |
Happy birthday to you,
Happy birthday to you;
Happy birthday, dear Groklaw,
Happy birthday to you!
The tune we all know for these words was written in 1893, and - astonishingly -
is going to remain in copyright until at least 2030: under present laws, this
means indefinitely.
The royaltes are about $2 million a year, and are split between a company called
Summy-Birchard and the Hill Foundation, named for the sisters attributed with
composing the tune, who both died childless.
Just so long as the Arts and Sciences are advanced, it must be a Good Thi... ak!
Is that Martha Stewart's?
Congratulations, PJ. There's plenty left to do, in case you felt things were
drying up.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 02:03 AM EDT |
| :) -m [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bonzai on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 02:16 AM EDT |
InformationWeek has an article about Longhorn Server
After
months of waffling, Microsoft clarified plans for future versions of Windows
Server, pegging 2007 as the target for a server version of the company's
next-generation operating system, known as Longhorn. A client version of
Longhorn should come six to 12 months before Longhorn server, but company
officials stopped short of saying the client would arrive in
2006.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: crs17 on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 04:03 AM EDT |
Thank you for a year of education and intellectual stimulation. And speaking of
stimulation, if you trademark PJ, does that mean I have to abandon my bedtime
attire?
:-)
Groklaw has been great. You continue to write amazing stuff and also steer and
bring together an astonishing group of commentators.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 08:17 AM EDT |
Congratulations PJ...
What I like about Groklaw is the same that I like about OS and GPL... Groklaw
has a bit commoditized american law in the way that american law is
understandable and available for people outside the trade. Law has stopped being
the private puppet of secret lobby groups and other people thinking they have
first right on law. The weakest spot of all these groups is educated people,
they thrive by lack of information at other parts of society.
This is why it is important to keep these big content providers from
monopolizing study books and other learning materials. If we cannot we will face
many many problems in future generations.
Bas Burger.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: phrostie on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 08:32 AM EDT |
I know this has already been said over and over again, but PJ, we are in your
debt. things may not have turned out the way they did without your efforts.
thanks.
---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/snafuu[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tim Ransom on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 09:01 AM EDT |
but celebrated Happy Birthday, Groklaw!
Thank you, PJ, Mathfox et al - both for your tireless efforts and for tolerating
my presence here this last year!
I remember discovering this little oasis last spring. It took me a week to
gather the nerve to add one of my lame jokes to the old non-threaded pop-up
comments window. Nowadays, I'm a full blown sanctimonious blowhard!
My name is Tim and I am a Grokaholic! PJ, you drove me to Grok, and I can't
thank you enough! My heartfelt thanks (and apologies) to one and all for putting
up with me and my bipolar humorist/pedantic windbag writings!
P.S., Julio, if you see this, I would like to donate the contents of my entire
blog to your site - I have been wading through chaos these last couple of
months, so my regrets at not getting back to you.
---
Thanks again,
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 09:37 AM EDT |
Wouldn't FOSS be better served by SCOX surviving but losing all suits over next
five years? That is, if their stock price tanked to nothing tomorrow, is there
a risk of losing all of the legal vindications the FOSS is looking for??[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 10:37 AM EDT |
Hey all,
Although I have visited this site before, it had been a long time, (and I
almost forgot about it). This may be useful in linking to articles that no
longer exist on external websites.
The wayback machine list of www.sco.com website archives:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/www.sco.com
Cheers!!!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 11:52 AM EDT |
It is pretty clear that Linux is no more a derivative of
Unix than POSIX is. In fact, much of Microsoft Windows'
interface and concepts came from there, too.
If SCO won against Linux, the next target would be POSIX,
and all conforming systems.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AIB on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 12:11 PM EDT |
Congratulations on the first of many fabulous years.
-AIB.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 06:33 PM EDT |
I believe that SCOX reached a new 52 week low today.
Yahoo Finance shows that SCOX closed at 4.81. Yahoo
Finance also shows that the 52 week range is 4.86 - 22.29.
Does this mean that SCOX just beat it's old 52 week low by
a nickle? Or am I miss-reading this information? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 06:53 PM EDT |
Happy happy !
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 07:53 PM EDT |
Pamela, congratulations and Happy Anniversary!
You're doing a great job. I wish Groklaw an even greater role as a keeper of
digital freedom after the SCO sideshow dies a natural death.
Ganesh Prasad[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: charon79m on Tuesday, May 18 2004 @ 12:05 AM EDT |
I am amazed every time I look through the massive amount of data this site has
unearthed, sorted, polished, and presented. Just think back to a year ago...
Try to imagine, just for a moment, trying to uncover in a week the truths that
this site can uncover in a matter of hours. Think of all the experts you would
need to track down. Think of all the man-days of work it would take.
Here at Groklaw the problem is presented, the experts of the particular field of
question divvy up the research, and the problem is solved. MY GOD, IT'S
BRILLIANT!
Just think if the entire world functioned this way... Think if each one of us
would simply help others with the gifts we've been given. (It's simple for me to
secure a network, but fix a leaky faucet... that's a week long event and 7 rolls
of duct tape.)
PJ, you've opened my eyes to a great truth. I think that the mushy idea of
community that people toss around (Linux Community, Hacker Community, etc) has
come to a point of singularity here at Groklaw. We are Community.
Congratulations again PJ, and God Bless.
MrKnisely
---
MrKnisely
"Note that your ears were not made to shut, but your mouth was." --unknown[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rojee on Tuesday, May 18 2004 @ 01:16 AM EDT |
Does SCO have a killer argument still hidden up its sleeve.
Maybe it's been
already discussed at groklaw and if so heres a refresher.
Whats a glaring
difference between BSD & many Linux distros?
One is simply "viewable
source code" is not required as a license requirement for BSD.
No need to go
there.
Another is the booting schema.... that is built into the kernel.
.......Its a major difference.
SCO would obviously claim its a deriative work
of SysV & probably ONLY SysV.
Hasn't been too much talk on that as I can
see
.
Can we debunk this BEFORE SCO trys to make mileage from it.
Basically
SCOs argument might be.......
The "booting BSD-style init processes" is WAY
different to the "booting SysV-style init processes"
Why ..... its arguably more
flexible, better etc,etc
There are more than 2 boot schemas but the
"SysV-style" initialization is very common.
Linux has adopted OURs (SCO) &
Linux has rejected theirs --- BSD-style.
We don't care about BSD-style because
it doesn't belong to us BUT SysV-style DOES! Damages Please!
As you can see
for yourself with "ls -lR /etc/rc.d" will show "SysV-style" files.
Looking at
the structure of most Linux file systems eg you will see
"/etc/rc.d" ,
"/etc/rc.d/rc.d/rc1.d" ,"/etc/rc.d/rc.d/rc6.d" directorys etc, etc
&
files:
EG: VIP, file "/etc/inttab"
&
The S** files in the "rc1.d" thru
to "rc6.d" directories------ will START applications" in a set order.
The K**
files in the "rc1.d" thru to "rc6.d" directories ------ will KILL/STOP
applications"
one has to agree. Its only "naming" & sequence though.
But
it does set most of Linux apart from BSD.
An argument waiting to
start..................
Roger
PS. my first post.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
