|
"SCO Is Chafing Badly Under the Propaganda War It Is Losing to Groklaw" - To Set Up Rival Website |
|
Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 03:26 PM EDT
|
They think we have beaten them at their best game, I gather. So far, so good.
Actually, they view it as a war, whereas I view it as a quest for truth. SCO says that they are being attacked by "Hurricane Linux". But I believe Dr. Freud would label that as projection. Who started attacking whom? Be fair, SCO. Ha Ha.
They plan to set up a website to tell their side of the story, beginning November 1, and provide legal documents so you won't have to come to Groklaw any more. They say they had requests to do that. No doubt it's the same group they told us asked them to set up SCOSource and then didn't buy a license. They won't allow any comments, because they'd get drowned out, they say. That fear ought to tell them something. You can see some of the media coverage, by the way, here and here and here and here, the last being where the Maureen O'Gara quotation used in the title comes from. She wrote it back in mid-September, but I didn't think it was worth mentioning. I thought it would come across as blowing my own horn, too. But now that Groklaw is in the headlines, I guess I should respond. Anyway, I want to share the experience with you.
One journalist asked me if I would respond. Here is what I sent to him: I am surprised their lawyers let them do commentary on an ongoing case, but I have confidence my readers will continue to come to Groklaw for what they like about Groklaw, which is that they trust me and they enjoy what I write and they are participants in a community.
I like the touch about it being due to consumer demand. Must be the same group that they allege begged them to do SCOSource.
I think SCO has misdiagnosed their problem. They think their problem is that they haven't gotten their side of the story out. That isn't their problem.
On court filings, anyone can get the court filings in the IBM case for free on Pacer and for pennies in the other cases. If that is all they are offering, I doubt it will draw.
That isn't primarily what people come to Groklaw for, anyway. If they did, they could skip the articles and head straight to the Legal Docs page, which has the filings with no commentary, or one of
the Timeline pages, which also provides legal filings without commentary.
Having said that, if all SCO's trolls would desert Groklaw and head on over to the new SCO website and stay on the compound over there, that would be lovely.
So, that's how I view it. I am naturally interested to read their commentary. I have little doubt that there are some lawyers here and there drooling in anticipation as well. SCO's problem is in the courts, not in the media. If I were advising them about PR, I'd tell them to address that problem, and good publicity will result. They need to show the world some System V code in Linux pronto. That would solve their PR problem in a blink. No charge for my advice, by the way. This is a noncommercial site run by volunteers who are beating you at PR. Go figure. There was a followup question, asking if Groklaw was my job, and here is my answer to that: Groklaw isn't a job. It's my hobby. I do it from the heart, because I want to. I do it to say thank you for software I truly enjoy. And I do it because it's a creative experiment, to see if we, as a community, could be helpful in finding evidence in the lawsuit. After all, although the community is not a party to any of the lawsuits, it is their code being fought over and we are all going to be affected by the result, so why shouldn't we care? And I do it to deflate FUD. Groklaw is an antiFUD site. Our goal is to tell the truth, with facts and links to allow you to verify everything.
That is, by the way, one reason people trust me, I think. They know I have complete editorial freedom, so I don't have any pressure to spin a story any particular way. I care about accuracy and being fair. I think they know and rely upon it that if I picked up a rock and found some evidence that bolstered SCO's side, I'd say so straightforwardly. You can read more about Groklaw's purpose and various features, standards, and services here and here. Here are some details about their planned site and why SCO is suddenly talking freely again, from PCPro's Matt Whip, linked to above. It seems BayStar made them stop talking to the press, and now that they are gone, up pops Darl. What? You thought the story about Judge Wells asking them to be quiet was true?: Prior to this, the only place the SCO community could find out SCO's side of the story was from McBride himself. Aside from a brief period when investor group Baystar threatened to pull out its shares unless high level execs communicated in a more 'sensible, businesslike fashion,', McBride had been very active delivering executive speeches, open letters and conference calls extolling SCO's case and portraying the Open Source community as a harbourer of 'counter-cultural ideals' and labelling the GPL licence which governs Open Source software as violating the US Constitution.
But with Baystar having converted its stake to common stock and busily selling it off, McBride was back in full force at the Etre conference, describing intellectual property as 'the new gold', and warning that in the IP Gold Rush, the Open Source community is out to get it. He urged providers of proprietary software to shore up their intellectual property against 'hurricane Linux'.
The "SCO community"? That would be exactly who? And as for saying there was no place to get information, they surely had SCO's website, which already had legal documents cherry picked by them. They put up legal documents on their site before Groklaw began to do it, as I recall, beginning with their original complaint. And there were plenty of press releases, that's for sure. There was also their Darl McBride.com website. Remember when they announced that? It already tells SCO's side of the story. What? That wasn't a thunderous success? I think SCO has forgotten that it told the Washington Post's Jonathan Krim back in June that that SCO lawyers also use Groklaw as a resource: "One Web site focused exclusively on the case, known as Groklaw, was started by a paralegal named Pamela Jones and now has roughly 5,000 contributors. Though it is ardently pro-Linux, the site has grown into such an exhaustive archive of software history and law that attorneys on both sides use it as a resource."
And they are welcome to continue to use Groklaw as a resource. Of course we have way more than 5,000 members now. Groklaw just keeps on growing. I found that little bit of history by using the search function. I just typed in "resource both Groklaw" minus the quotation marks, set the menu for "all these words" and there it was. I use Groklaw as a resource myself. So what is this really all about? Time will tell, but I expect their site will attack Groklaw. There has already been, just as I said there would be, what I view as an astroturf campaign on other boards, and heaven only knows it's been tried here. So they are now upping the ante. That is my interpretation. That's what will distinguish it from their prior offerings, which already tell their side of every angle of every SCO story. Except the one that Groklaw tells. The one that is the pebble in their shoe. So, like Night of the Living Dead, here they come.
|
|
Authored by: spamhippy on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 04:15 PM EDT |
trolls like it here...... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Ah a place to hide and attack Groklawians from .... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 04:51 PM EDT
- But not for trollers - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 06:20 PM EDT
- But not for trollers - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 08:38 PM EDT
- Hey bub .... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 11:18 PM EDT
- I dont remember any lawyer letting any client talk about any real case. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:12 PM EDT
- Groklaw will still have a lower TCO than GrokSCO =] - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 01:06 AM EDT
- PJ, I resent your imputation - Authored by: Rudisaurus on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 03:57 AM EDT
- PJ, I resent your imputation - Authored by: robmyers on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 05:12 AM EDT
- PROSCO.COM ??? not owned by sco yet - Authored by: iccaros on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 08:02 AM EDT
- PJ, I resent your imputation - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 09:08 AM EDT
- yeah, I just sit around being "fiercly proud" of myself... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 09:21 AM EDT
- I apologize (mine was parent post) - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 10:48 AM EDT
|
Authored by: spamhippy on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 04:16 PM EDT |
put the buggers here..... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I went to a prosco_tologist once. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:39 PM EDT
- Prosconet ? Isn't that a kind of Italian ham ? - Authored by: IrisScan on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 07:46 PM EDT
- OT - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 08:22 PM EDT
- OT - Authored by: radix2 on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 09:01 PM EDT
- OT - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 09:07 PM EDT
- OT - Authored by: wsapplegate on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 03:49 AM EDT
- OT - Authored by: archonix on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 05:42 AM EDT
- OT - Authored by: azrael on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 05:58 AM EDT
- OT - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 03:07 PM EDT
- OT - Authored by: rc on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 01:25 PM EDT
- I went to a prosco_tologist once. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 01:18 AM EDT
- Corrections.....there drooling -> they're drooling (eom) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 06:27 PM EDT
- Corrections..... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 09:25 AM EDT
- Corrections..... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 02:39 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 04:18 PM EDT |
PJ stated:
"Who started attacking whom? Be fair, SCO. Ha Ha."
I LOVE IT!
A bit of sweet glory thrown in the faces of SCO execs.
My one and only question to the SCO execs is why not open a message forum with
your web site? Are you afraid of being inundated by people speaking the truth?
Isn't a web site with no commentary just another propoganda tool? Just like the
www.sco.com website?
I'd think they would want to spend some of that remaining, valuable money on
developing a product to sell (and make money, remember guys?). But instead they
are making a web site to substitute for Darl's mouth. This should be
hilarious!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: OmniGeek on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 04:25 PM EDT |
OK, so let's play along with Mr. McBride's crazy gold-rush metaphor for a
minute...
In a gold rush, lots of get-rich-quick types run around trying to grab a
nominally free resource (minerals lying on the ground) and peddle it as their
property. Some of them are rather, shall we say, unscrupulous in their methods.
If we accurately apply this metaphor to the situation of IP, and more
particularly to Open Source software and the IP rights thereto, the present SCO
are a bunch of thieving claim-jumpers screaming "Mine! My Preciousss!
Gollum!", and the Open Source community are out there giving the stuff away
for free -- as long as you're willing to share it fairly.
"Counter-cultural," says Mr. McBride? Maybe so; I for one am totally
counter to the culture he advocates. Let's counter that culture for all we're
worth!
---
My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on
espresso.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- IP Gold Rush? Pah! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:06 PM EDT
- IP Gold Rush? Pah! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:48 PM EDT
- Not just "deep pockets." - Authored by: Ed L. on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:59 PM EDT
- Clean Hands - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 07:45 PM EDT
- Sepacu? - Authored by: Weeble on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 09:19 PM EDT
- IP Gold Rush? Pah! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 10:52 PM EDT
- sepacu? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 11:24 PM EDT
- Not seppuku, kamikaze? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 12:07 AM EDT
- Kamikaze - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 10:27 AM EDT
- IP Gold Rush? Pah! - Authored by: paul_cooke on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:54 PM EDT
- IP Gold Rush? Pah! - Authored by: Rudisaurus on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 04:03 AM EDT
- More like beginnings of Oklahoma - Authored by: phsolide on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 12:25 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 04:36 PM EDT |
Access denied trying to read this story. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 04:55 PM EDT |
I'll start
www.justthissideofperjury.com
www.footbullets.com
www.purelindoncrack.com[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Suggested alternate URLs here... - Authored by: k12linux on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 04:58 PM EDT
- Err ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:00 PM EDT
- Suggested alternate URLs here... - Authored by: k12linux on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:07 PM EDT
- Suggested alternate URLs here... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:25 PM EDT
- Suggested alternate URLs here... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:26 PM EDT
- Suggested alternate URLs here... - Authored by: frk3 on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:27 PM EDT
- Suggested alternate URLs here... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:31 PM EDT
- Suggested alternate URLs here... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:32 PM EDT
- Suggested alternate URLs here... - Authored by: red floyd on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:44 PM EDT
- Suggested alternate URLs here... - Authored by: eskild on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 06:21 PM EDT
- Suggested alternate URLs here... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 06:24 PM EDT
- Humor: Pronunciation of "prosco" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 07:34 PM EDT
- Suggested alternate URLs here... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 07:39 PM EDT
- clickable URLs here... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 07:48 PM EDT
- www.ToeGun.com? - Authored by: IrisScan on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 07:58 PM EDT
- Suggested alternate URLs here... - Authored by: gard on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 08:37 PM EDT
- Suggested alternate URLs here... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 09:06 PM EDT
- Suggested alternate URLs here... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 09:08 PM EDT
- Suggested alternate URLs here... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 09:14 PM EDT
- Open a dictionary, lookup sco... scolex is my favourite - Authored by: morsch on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 12:37 AM EDT
- scoria... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 07:15 AM EDT
- Suggested alternate URLs here... - Authored by: Ashe on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 01:05 AM EDT
- Prosco.com is available... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 09:37 AM EDT
- Sue-and-go-fishing.net (n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 10:50 AM EDT
- Suggested alternate URLs here... - Authored by: rc on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 02:03 PM EDT
- Suggested alternate URLs here... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 08:29 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 04:56 PM EDT |
They are going to "accidently" leak sealed court documents onto their
own website. We (Groklaw) might then copy those documents. Then they sue
Groklaw.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: spamhippy on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 04:59 PM EDT |
The official (if not somewhat late..) section for posting information that has
little or nothing to do with the main post. a place where you can ramble on and
on at your own free will. i place where you can just ...talk and talk and talk
about of topic subject matter for hours and hours beyond end..a place where....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- IBM Open Sources Object REXX - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:20 PM EDT
- Darl back in full force????? - Authored by: jmc on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:23 PM EDT
- OT: News Site Links - Authored by: ujay on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:49 PM EDT
- OT: takes longer to write a ruling granting summary judgement than denying it - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:53 PM EDT
- reporting gpl violations - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 06:43 PM EDT
- OT: Somebody set up us the rival website. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 07:09 PM EDT
- OT: off topic posts - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 07:13 PM EDT
- Mission Statement Updated - Authored by: harrytuttle on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 07:38 PM EDT
- Whats wrong Darl? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 07:55 PM EDT
- David Boise on the radio - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 08:34 PM EDT
- "McBride was back in full force" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 08:49 PM EDT
- Astroturf - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 09:12 PM EDT
- What is a deep link? What deep links prohibited? - Authored by: davcefai on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 01:17 AM EDT
- What is a deep link? What deep links prohibited? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 03:52 AM EDT
- You Might Be a Microsoft Patent Infringer - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 07:18 AM EDT
- One type of deep link - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 09:59 AM EDT
- What is a deep link? What deep links prohibited? - Authored by: Ruidh on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 10:17 AM EDT
- prosco.com = P. Roscoe = Dukes of Hazzard? - Authored by: talexb on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 10:29 AM EDT
- Darl is confident in the Software his company makes... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 11:17 AM EDT
- OT: Linspire worldwide user maps - Authored by: Fractalman on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 11:32 AM EDT
- OT: How many members of Gorklaw? - Authored by: jimwelch on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 04:19 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Nick_UK on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:00 PM EDT |
SCO make you write this stuff! So unbelievable that the
facts are soooooo obvious.
You couldn't make it up!
Pamela, you are great.
The unwitting 'Linus' from 15 years ago or so, done
something that he never even thought about what c/would
happen - or expected.
Growlaw is running similar, parallel (paralegal) lines.
Nick [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: k12linux on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:01 PM EDT |
If we are going to spend much time refuting the garbage they are certain to put
on that site, maybe we had better cache the pages we are referring to. I have
no doubt that as soon as an argument is torn up here the page it referred to
will change.
After all, what better way to show groklaw takes words out of context than to
repeatedly change both the words and the context after the fact?
---
- SCO is trying to save a sinking ship by drilling holes in it. -- k12linux[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Cache it? - Authored by: iTron on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:08 PM EDT
- Cache it? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:14 PM EDT
- Journalism And Sealed Docs - Authored by: dmscvc123 on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:20 PM EDT
- Cache it? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 06:18 PM EDT
- Cache it? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 06:22 AM EDT
- Cache it? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 09:50 AM EDT
- Cache it? - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 06:59 PM EDT
- Cache it? - Authored by: vortex on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 07:25 PM EDT
- Cache it? - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:58 PM EDT
- Cache it? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 02:43 AM EDT
|
Authored by: iTron on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:03 PM EDT |
... SCO start attempting to beat their own, tired, broken drum.
Well done PJ, I am so eternally gratefull for you starting this - the sheer
amount of amusement, wisdom, and downright factualisation of the events
unfolding is exactly what was needed. Not only for the writers of Open Source
software, but for the users of that software too - and , of course, hopefully
the relevent Media outlets that report on these happenings. Most definately, if
Groklaw - or anything like it - didn't exist, I'm sure the Media would be
reporting this in a much worse way than they are.
Thank you. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for doing this - I assure you,
and I know this for a fact, that the Linux Community as a whole is very, very
glad that you're doing what you are doing :)
Keep up the fact reporting and anti-FUD activities - PLEASE! :)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:11 PM EDT |
this used to be just a few newsletters, there are loads now. I think they
contain interesting information.
Archive here
in the older ones
there is masses of information on their plans to unify UNIX and Linux.
for
example [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: edal on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:11 PM EDT |
So, from November 1st I will have a choice of sources for my news in the SCO
onslaught. Groklaw with PJ, Quatermass and the gang providing insightful
commentary and the court documents from both sides - or Prosco produced by Darl
and his gang with their lopsided view of the world.
No contest really, but I do have one suggestion for Darl if he's reading this.
Post on the front page of your website the offending code which you say is in
Linux, the code that the deep divers and the rocket scientists found. Then we
can all have a look at our source code and see who was telling porkies. After
all, this is about finding the truth, isn't it, Darl?
Ed Almos
Budapest, Hungary[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hardcode57 on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:12 PM EDT |
but they will be unable to launch the site because of 'IBM malfeasance' and will
have to delay going live till April 1.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: n8ur on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:18 PM EDT |
O'Gara's article says this in reference to Project Monteray: "See, IBM was
on Unix System 3 and Sun was on System V and IBM needed to catch up, but,
according to SCO, didn't want to pay SCO for it, hence the new charges.
Supposedly SCO never knew any of this before it stumbled over it in IBM's
discovery."
That has to be wrong. There was Unix System v3, back in the 70s, and Unix
System III in 1981. I can't believe that IBM was basing AIX on System III as
late as the time of Monteray. I wonder if she means System V R3
("SVR3", which is a totally different beast that did continue as the
base for at least some vendors' Unix releases, even well after SVR4.2, the last
AT&T-owned release, came out in 1992. I can't believe that any modern Unix
is based on System III, which in any event is part of the "Ancient
Unix" that was released by Caldera.
Anyway, sorry for the rambling, but this quote just didn't make sense to me.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:18 PM EDT |
SCO is waging a propaganda war on the world. PJ on the other hand, is engaged
in journalism, not propaganda. Propaganda (what SCO does) consists of
unsupported and/or unsupportable opinions, with no factual evidence to back it
up. Journalism (what PJ does) consists of reporting of events and providing
supporting facts, or presenting an opinion without pretending that it is fact.
SCO's propaganda does not match their court filings.
PJ's articles about their court filings DO match the filings--as you can see by
reading the quotes in the original legal documents which are all available at
Groklaw's Legal Docs page.
Truth doesn't always win out over lies, but it certainly will in the SCO case
because too many independent people are angry at SCO and are motivated to seek
out and spread the truth of this case. SCO can FUD all they want to but they're
still going to get crushed like a bug in court, and history will remember the
*true* story, not SCO's twisted version.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:19 PM EDT |
www.SCOFUD.com ?
Nick Bridge[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blang on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:30 PM EDT |
shows the name was registered Oct 04, and it is registered for just one year.
Darl must be the worst PR person ever, though.
Announcing the name of a website a month before it is launched, and announcing
the plans for the web site even before they had secured the domain.
I have a feeling the sco trolls will be very disappointed with prosco.net.
Prosco also seems to be a registered trade mark. It would be ironic if
prosco-the-company complains to the UN IP office, and forces sco to relinquish
the domain.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Whois - Authored by: frk3 on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:34 PM EDT
- Whois prosco inc - Authored by: dyfet on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:51 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Observer on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:39 PM EDT |
I think the reason people trust the site is that, no matter what PJ says,
no matter if she slants her comments or spins them or whatever, she always posts
the original documents. It's self limiting. If PJ was off base, then
the documents wouldn't support her. Lord know not everyone here agrees on
everything. However, these are SCO's words, or IBM's, or Novel's or whatever.
PJ isn't making this stuff up. If someone doesn't like what PJ says, then he or
she can add their own comments. They might get beat up a little by the zealots,
but I guess that's all a part of participating in an online community.
If
SCO wants to put up a site, I don't see any problem with that. I'd be
interested to see what they actually put up, if it is more than the publicly
available docs that Groklaw has been showing, and what sort of license they use
for the material. If it's not too restrictive, I don't doubt that there will be
plenty of links from here to that site (or copying, if that is allowed), along
with more commentary by PJ and all the rest of us. Let's see what happens when
SCO tries to spin their own story, and if it holds any water. I wouldn't mind
reading it. After all, laughter is a great way to releave
stress... --- The Observer [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Trust - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:58 PM EDT
- enough rope - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 02:51 AM EDT
- Ah, Trust, a very curious thing - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 10:31 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:47 PM EDT |
Like a facist regime that after a lot of critique and a lost war starts on
propaganda.
It's to sad too be true, But... sco(mbags).
retep [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:48 PM EDT |
But putting up a site like this was most likely our buddy Rob Enderle's idea. If
I'm right about this, I'm sure he'll invite other FUDmasters to participate such
as Laura DiDio, post interviews with Darl McBride and his cohorts and generally
try to whitewash a new load of FUD for mass market appeal.
I suspect the whole thing will provide ample material for new ridicule of SCO,
Rob, Laura and the whole Keystone Cops crowd over there.
---
(GL) Groklaw Lurker
End the tyranny, eliminate software patents.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 05:56 PM EDT |
...they'll claim to fall victim to yet another fake DDoS attack. "Those
groklaw bandits don't want the truth to get out, so they try to shut us
up."
Chris[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I Bet... - Authored by: stevem on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 07:11 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 06:03 PM EDT |
"They need to show the world some System V code in Linux pronto. That would
solve their PR problem in a blink."
The PR problems are minor compared to financial issues.
*If* SCO will show "System V code in Linux pronto" the
"community" will have two respones:
1) Showing the same code in older sources; e.g. BSD UNIX or text books.
2) Replacing all the SCO code within a couple of days and have an "SCO
free" Linux. A week later somebody like Red Hat[tm] will probably send the
"SCO free" Linux on a CD for copying, shipping, and handling, cost.
Customers who sit on the fence with respect to SCO license will just download
the "SCO free" version; (in later lawsuits they will be able to
claim, correctly, that they had no idea that any UNIX code was in the new
version).
The bottom line is that SCO plays poker with no good cards. It can put a
$1,000,000,000 bet, but it can't show its cards. The best hope is that IBM or
some big Linux users will fold. Showing their cards will not help in that.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 06:05 PM EDT |
"He urged providers of proprietary software to shore up their intellectual
property against 'hurricane Linux'."
Link
Is he making
fresh allegations?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 06:10 PM EDT |
Who started attacking whom? Be fair, SCO
From
the headline, I would assume that this comment pertains to the
SCO-PJ/Groklaw
"relationship." Perhaps, though, it pertains to the
SCO-Linux
relationship.
Assuming the former: as early as your May 17, 2003 Weblog, you
say
"SCO FALLS DOWNSTAIRS, HITTING ITS HEAD ON EVERY STEP." Not
particularly
factual, something of an insult, and rather clearly an attack on
your
part, I'd say.
If you can find a something negative that they say about
you or
Groklaw that predates that, then I'd concede your point.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Who's on first - Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 06:33 PM EDT
- Who's on first - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 06:42 PM EDT
- The first punch - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 06:57 PM EDT
- The first punch - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 07:17 PM EDT
- Deja Vu - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 10:02 PM EDT
- Deja Vu - Authored by: LarryVance on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 10:32 PM EDT
- Deja Vu - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 10:33 PM EDT
- Hey you got it. - Authored by: Latesigner on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 11:28 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 03:11 AM EDT
- PJ misunderstood the question - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 04:22 PM EDT
- Who's on first - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 06:43 PM EDT
- aww, shaddup Wally - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 07:32 PM EDT
- oh wait! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 11:33 PM EDT
- Actually, it was a bit off - Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 07:43 PM EDT
- Good troll (nt) - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 03:51 AM EDT
- Who's on first - Authored by: blacklight on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 06:00 AM EDT
- SCO First Falsely ATTACKED Linux and its Developers - Authored by: rjamestaylor on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 06:01 PM EDT
|
Authored by: TAZ6416 on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 06:10 PM EDT |
I would like to remind them that as a minor Groklaw poster, I can be helpful in
rounding up others to toil in their underground FUD caves.
Jonathan
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: senectus on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 06:12 PM EDT |
Then fade out as they run out of things to say/make up, and gradually loose
interest in posting "rebuttals" to PJ and her charming wit ;-)
That and I'm sure that one of their lawyers will eventually catch on tell them
to shut the hell up, as nothing they have to say is going to help them prove a
lie.
Not with the Internet and the massive community watching.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ray08 on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 06:15 PM EDT |
"We've received a lot of feedback from people saying, 'I would like to
follow what's going on, but I would prefer to not have to visit Groklaw,'"
Stowell said."
Note that he said "a lot of feedback from people" and NOT
"feedback from a lot of people"! So BS, is that like Laura Didiot and
Rob Underly?
Hey everyone, we get to listen to SCO shoot off their big mouths again; I smell
FUD!
---
Caldera is toast! And Groklaw is the toaster! (with toast level set to BURN)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 06:18 PM EDT |
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then
you win." -Mahatma Ghandi (emphasis added)
I'd say that this is a SCO
attempt to "fight" Groklaw. Keep at 'em, PJ, a win for truth is imminent! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 06:24 PM EDT |
Seems unlikely to me that this whole Web site
thing is anything more than a
shot at propping
up SCOX shares for a few days [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 06:39 PM EDT |
Aside from a brief period when investor group Baystar threatened to pull out
its shares unless high level execs communicated in a more 'sensible,
businesslike fashion,'...
So many jokes, so little time. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: micheal on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 06:40 PM EDT |
"Baystar threatened to pull out its shares unless high level execs
communicated in a more 'sensible, businesslike fashion,'"
Does this mean SCO execs are going to communicate in a less sensible and less
businesslike fashion?
Actually, I don't think that is possible.
---
LeRoy -
What a wonderful day.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 06:49 PM EDT |
I kind of miss my daily dose of SCOG filings - the ones that are overlength
because they tell everything but the truth, except inadvertently.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: eamacnaghten on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 07:07 PM EDT |
They won't allow any comments, because they'd get drowned out, they
say.
Well - all I can think of to say to that is "No Comment!".
Web
Sig: Eddy Currents [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 07:14 PM EDT |
Since SCO will apparently not host a public forum, perhaps Groklaw can host one
for them?
Each time a story appears on the new SCO site, post the title and a link - and
perhaps an executive summary - here. Then anyone who feels inclined to offer
them feedback will have the opportunity to do so.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Do SCO a favour - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 07:39 PM EDT
- Do Linux a favor... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 08:48 PM EDT
- Do SCO a favour - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 08:45 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 07:20 PM EDT |
I liked this Slashdot
Comment by "ikekrull" (who isn't me, by the way).
I think it sums things
up nicely. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: MunchWolf on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 07:35 PM EDT |
2 things from above comments:
I noticed people suggesting PJ should comment on/link to that site. Why give
them the publicity? They are expecting to get a large audience from here
through links. Why feed their PR? Just keep doing things like normal here.
Second, why would they even dream of putting up such a site? If they are going
to add commentary, couldn't their own words be used in court against them? If
it's only legal documents, hmmm ... then I'm guessing it will only be their
documents, and not any of their opponents, otherwise their viewers might get an
informed view of the situation.
-Munch "I just want to know companies in general find brilliant decision
makers like this (and stay in business), and if anyone wants to hire me as a
dartboard manager" Wolf[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ine on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 07:59 PM EDT |
Everyone losing an argument thinks it is because their side of the story hasn't
been heard.
They don't want to admit that they are losing the argument because their side is
WRONG.
Everyone has heard SCO's story. They just don't buy it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 08:06 PM EDT |
Find 2 jigsaw puzzles then split the players into 2 teams.
One team is "SCO" and the other is "a bunch of anti-capitolist
hippie, commie, IBM loving, no-good baddies".
Play begins with the "SCO" team picking up various pieces of one of
the jigsaw puzzles and giving orations about them.
The "bunch of,etc..." team attempts to "disprove" the
"SCO" teams theories by showing them the actual picture of the
completed puzzle. The "SCO" team will, of course, have none of this
and continues with it's wild and outlandish descriptions of various individual
puzzle pieces.
The "bunch of, etc..." team then begins to actually assemble the
puzzle to "prove that the pieces complete the picture on the box".
After the puzzle has been completed the "SCO" team picks up the other
puzzle and begins all over again. If some unfortunate soul happens upon this mad
parlor game, the "SCO" team starts pulling pieces of the first puzzle
and spouting their wild nonsense again.
Play ends when the "bunch of, etc..." team discovers that a 3rd party
has been paying the "SCO" team millions of dollars to continue this
charade and lose interest in argueing to no end.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 08:08 PM EDT |
I wouldn't be surprised if SCO will anounce one day
that their new website is under DDOS.
They did it before.
regards, Boris.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Stumbles on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 08:27 PM EDT |
Oh boy. I can't wait for SCO to start such a useful website. I'm sure
there will be many nuggets of information that will turn many
heads. It has to. McBride has already demonstrated many times
attempts at spinning "their cause" in many directions no sane nor
reasonable person would ever think to travel.
The real bonus will be all the extra fodder McBride will make
available to IBM. You would think with the many times IBM has
already used his ramblings against them in a court of law, that
McBride would learn to keep his mouth shut.
---
You can tuna piano but you can't tuna fish.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: WildCode on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 08:37 PM EDT |
Note that the site is a "Pro" SCO site, meaning they will only put
good things on their or documents that try to enforce their opinion.
I personally do not see them putting up "Judge told us NO!" or
mentioning "Our evidence was thrown out of court". Nor do I see them
putting up IBM legal docs that support IBM arguments.
Despite what SCO says, the site will only appear "Fair" to their side
of the story, not the whole story.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: om1er on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 08:42 PM EDT |
But with Baystar having converted its stake to common stock and
busily selling it off, McBride was back in full force at the Etre conference,
describing intellectual property as 'the new gold', and warning that in the IP
Gold Rush, the Open Source community is out to get it.
I hope
this indicates that Darl McBride is going to start talking a lot more, again.
Personally, I found his statements both highly inflammatory and endlessly
amusing. It has been a little bit boring without his outrageous snippets to
pick apart. At the last hearing, IBM apparently handed to the judge a small
book containing Darl quotes, among other things. If Darl starts bleeting again
maybe IBM can slam down two thick three-ring binders of Darl quotes in the
courtroom - much as Darl slammed down two three-ring binders full of SCOG press
clippings at last year's SCO Forum (the one where they showed the code in
Greek-font, and then got shot down by Bruce Perens and others within
hours). Some more absurdity from Darl, Blake, and Chris would lighten things
up around here a lot. Plus, it would give them something to explain on their
new www.thesilentmajoritybeggedustodothis.com web site.
Or the www.sco.pl one. --- Keeping an eye on the
bouncing ball. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 08:45 PM EDT |
Since they don't have the case, at least they can have a site, eh? Really bad we
can't post there though. But then again, they probably would let trolls like
myself post things like:
"Where is the code Darl?"
Or worse:
"Why have you been telling us fibs Darl?"
Lucky there is still Groklaw ;-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Brian S. on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 08:45 PM EDT |
I don't know how well this was replayed in the US but it had the UK and much of
Europe enthralled for years.
It all started because a group of healthy lifestyle protesters were handing out
leaflets outside Mcdonalds which claimed hamburgers were not good for you etc.
etc. No sign of trouble, I believe there were only 5 of them. McDonalds for
reasons best known to itself, and maybe on the advice of some lawyers who could
see a way of making themselves some money, informed the protesters that unless
they apologised for the contents of their leaflet they would prosecute them for
Libel.
Here comes the good bit, 2 refused to apologise and so in 1990 began the Longest
Court Case in British Legal History.
The two, Helen Steel and David Morris, were young and broke and decided to
defend themselves in court. For month after month and then year after year the
public was entertained by regular news updates of these 2 on their own vs. rows
and rows of expensive Mcdonalds briefs in the High Court in London. The case
consumed them as they lived on social security and defended themselves full
time, trying to learn the law as they went, a bit like many on Groklaw. Of
course, the public responded as it was obvious they would, the two became famous
and McDonalds reputation fell monthly as did their stock. The sad thing is they
were found guilty of libel in 1997 after day 313 of the actual trial and fined
£60,000 which they didn't have.
Of course, they've never paid the fine and I believe they have an appeal coming
up in the European Court.
The good bit came when the judge found against McDonalds for 'exploiting
children', 'cruelty to animals', 'deceiving customers about the nutritional
qualities of their food' and 'paying low wages'. The following month their
President and CEO was forced out because of falling sales worldwide.
Lesson No1 for corporations - Don't take on Public Opinion.
McDonalds have never recovered their reputation in Europe.
Lesson No2 for corporations - F/OSS has a lot lot more resources on it's side
than those two did and will attract just as much underdog sympathy.
Do you think you stand more chance than Mcdonalds, Darl?
PS. I have nothing against McDonalds personally. It's the story thats good. You
can buy books about it.
Brian S.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 08:52 PM EDT |
SCO and its officers are nothing but a bunch of hyprocrites. They hate 'open
source' so much that they run their website on Apache and PHP. Sheeesh....
wget -vd www.sco.com
DEBUG output created by Wget 1.8.2 on linux-gnu.
--20:41:56-- http://www.sco.com/
=> `index.html.1'
Resolving www.sco.com... done.
Caching www.sco.com => 216.250.128.21
Connecting to www.sco.com[216.250.128.21]:80... connected.
Created socket 3.
Releasing 0x80824c8 (new refcount 1).
---request begin---
GET / HTTP/1.0
User-Agent: Wget/1.8.2
Host: www.sco.com
Accept: */*
Connection: Keep-Alive
---request end---
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:41:36 GMT
Server: Apache
X-Powered-By: PHP/4.3.2
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html
End of debate, beeeeeeep...... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 09:05 PM EDT |
This is the funniest news in a long time.
---
Just Believe.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: eamacnaghten on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 09:32 PM EDT |
What are the odds that the prosco.net (or is it prosco.com) web site will run
Linux like Sco's
home web site?
Web Sig: Eddy
Currents [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tomas on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 09:42 PM EDT |
Hi, PJ!
I really think that you are giving proSCO.net waaaaay to much credit when
you say "SCO ... To Set Up Rival Website."
A site that merely presents
SCOdrivel and selected SCOdocuments, but offers no interaction with it's
visitors (posted comments, Q&A, whatever) is certainly no "Rival" to
Groklaw.
(Just for laughs, I enjoyed some of the quotes at Darl's site
about the IBM case, which, of course, has nothing to do with SCO copyrights in
Linux according to their court documents and statements at
hearings...)
"The most controversial issue in the information
technology industry today is the ongoing battle over software copyrights and
intellectual property. This battle is being fought largely between vendors who
create and sell proprietary software, and the Open Source community. My company,
the SCO Group, became a focus of this controversy when we filed a lawsuit
against IBM alleging that SCO’s proprietary UNIX® code has been illegally copied
into the free Linux operating system."
"For several months SCO has been
involved in a contentious legal case that we filed against IBM. What are the
underlying intellectual property principles that have put SCO in a strong
position in this hotly debated legal case? I’d summarize them in this
way:"
"One reason SCO sued IBM is due to our assertions that IBM has
violated the terms of the specific IBM/SCO license agreement through its
handling of derivative works. We believe our evidence is compelling on this
issue.
The copyright rules that underlie SCO’s case are not
disputable."
----
"Copyright attributions protect ownership and
attribution rights—they cannot simply be changed or stripped away. This is how
copyright owners maintain control of their legal rights and prevent unauthorized
transfer of ownership. Our proprietary software code has been copied into Linux
by people who simply stripped off SCO’s copyright notice or contributed
derivative works in violation of our intellectual property rights. This is
improper."
And in another quote from Darl McBride, from his
website, he says somethings that sound just like what Judge Kimball and Novell
(and Groklaw) have been saying...
In copyright law, ownership
cannot be transferred without express, written authority of a copyright holder.
...
Transfer of copyright ownership without express written authority
of all proper parties is null and void.
(All Darl McBride quotes
above from DarlMcBride.com, Darl's
official site, provided for him by SCO, as shown here.)
Take
care,
--- Tom
Engineer (ret.)
We miss you, Moogy. Peace. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 09:51 PM EDT |
The one that is the pebble in their shoe.
SCOG
is known, worldwide, for their expertise with the footgun. Thus, I would not
expect a pebble (or anything) in SCOG's shoe to be long for this
world.
--Bill P [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Pebble - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 05:39 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 09:58 PM EDT |
From a slashdot comment: A new picture of Darl McBride has been posted over at
LinuxStoleSCOCode.com. It is a visual
representation of Darl's argument against open source. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rao on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 10:04 PM EDT |
A couple of the referenced articles said that groklaw was started shortly
after the SCO-IBM lawsuit. I thought it was just the other way around.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 10:07 PM EDT |
People,
This SCO site is a trap.
They put FUD on their site and wait for
someone to hack/defame their site.
Then they turn around and, with that
'victim' look in their eyes, say, "See, the Open Source Community are all
malicious hackers that want to destroy us! [long pause] Your
Honor."
So, please observe the following:
A) No matter how great the
urge, do NOT mess with their site.
B) Do NOT visit their site
as that only gives them cause to claim 'a lot of interest' by pointing to
visitor numbers.
Just ignore them.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- IT'S A TRAP - Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 11:10 PM EDT
- Do not visit - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 07:10 AM EDT
- IT'S A TRAP - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 11:47 PM EDT
- "own goals" and border patrol - Authored by: Boundless on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 12:29 AM EDT
- IT'S A TRAP - Authored by: Greebo on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 04:25 AM EDT
- If lots of people look at it when it opens, they'll call it a DDoS - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 04:43 AM EDT
- IT'S A TRAP - Authored by: Fourmyle on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 05:16 AM EDT
- IT'S A TRAP - Authored by: Jude on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 05:58 AM EDT
- IT'S A TRAP - Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 12:22 PM EDT
|
Authored by: kbwojo on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 10:34 PM EDT |
The funny part is that TSG has to make the site themselves. Maybe they should be
asking why no one is volunteering to champion their cause for them. All these
request, yet not one person with enough conviction to start a site.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: digger53 on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 10:58 PM EDT |
The idea that SCO is going to create own "info" site reminds me that
"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." As no comment will be
allowed on it it will be a 6th rate imitation, but an imitation, nontheless.
Groklaw & truth are winning.
And, if they are really "chafing" is it not because "the truth
hurts"? The truth only hurts liars.
---
When all else fails, follow directions.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 11:25 PM EDT |
"SCO Is Chafing Badly Under the Propaganda War It Is Losing to
Groklaw" - To Set Up Rival Website"
SCOG's propaganda vs. groklaw's analysis and fact checking: SCOG never had a
chance. The problem is not that "SCOG did not get a chance to tell its own
side of the story": the problem is that SCOG did, and the groklaw community
subsequently did a thorough and ruthless job of taking SCOG's story apart,
exposing SCOG's phoney baloney for what it is and without any regard for the
tender egos of SCOG's management.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ile on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 12:49 AM EDT |
Just an anecdote: last week I was chatting away with some family who happen to
own and run a pharmacy. They told me that they were upgrading their computer
system, and, out of curiosity, asked them about the setup, both in terms of
harware and software, and the functionality they expected. The family member
that is most in charge of the IT part then told me that although he is most used
to MS Windows (and he being a plant production engineer too!), the setup for
his wifeś pharmacy will be a UNIX server plus two POS points plus
another backoffice client computer. Whoa, UNIX! Over what kind of hardware? Oh,
I do not know, some Intel stuff. My, that was getting more interesting: UNIX on
Intel. Which one? Some SCO something or other.
At which point I felt obliged to suggest that they point out to their provider
that in all likelihood SCO would go bankrupt in less than a year, and that the
upgrade route to their (OpenServer) system was therefore unclear in the future.
So I think they are actually getting a rebate on the strength of that argument.
Of course I insisted that they should not take my word for it, and pointed out a
clearing house for information regarding the issue. You can all well imagine
which one it was... Since there is no SCO (decent) information site, I could
only point them here, of course. Not that I expect SCO's site to merit the
decent badge when it is set up, though.
Summarizing: the whole story is taking its toll where it hurts, in their
resellers' profits. And that is the way to doom.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Vaino Vaher on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 12:49 AM EDT |
So SCO is setting up a new Web site. Where do they find the people to do so? I
thought the last technically skilled employee left the company months
ago?
Or are they 'outsourcing' the job through their 'develop-for-profit'
program?
B.T.W: With all the debate about offshore'ing jobs from the US: Is
it not true that the
SCO Marketplace
Initiative is hurting IT jobs in the US by outsourcing jobs to the lowest
bidder; to someone who will be likely to live in a 'offshore' country?
Would
you not call SCO anti-American?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 02:01 AM EDT |
Lets hope the first story on their first site is spin on losing to one of IBM's
PSJ claims![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Chugiak on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 02:15 AM EDT |
LookAtTheWookie.com
IfTheGPLDontFitYouMustRemit.com
SpectralAnalysts.com
LyingInLindon.com[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Doh! - Authored by: Chugiak on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 02:17 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 03:03 AM EDT |
I thought the put the court cases here:
http://www.sco.com/ibmlawsuit/
and their-spin-on-the-story here:
http://www.sco.com/scosource/Final_SCOsource_QandA.html
What would the new site have that www.sco.com doesn't. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 03:04 AM EDT |
McBride had been very active delivering executive speeches, open
letters and conference calls extolling SCO's case and portraying the Open Source
community as a harbourer of 'counter-cultural ideals' and labelling the GPL
licence which governs Open Source software as violating the US
Constitution.
How can any ideal ever be counter-cultural? Culture
by it's very nature is made from ideals, whatever these ideals may be. If
McBride has issues with a prevailing ideal then McBride has an issue with a
large part of the culture.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- More rope - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 03:26 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 03:46 AM EDT |
Darl and the clan might want to look into some decent blogging software for his
new site. Geeklog, or another well known open source blogging software. I just
cannot picture a commercial blogger handling the load. If Darl is really this
serious about the "Groklaw vs. SCO" website and feedback, he really
should step up to the plate and use geeklog on a linux server for better uptime
and try to conform to what us fans expect to see.
Another interesting point, if SCO cannot keep their server up now with a couple
static pages, I'm curious how they will do with an interactive site that
requires the attention that such do. Interactive sites are quite hands on and
require constant maintenance administration.
This is quite funny. I'm sure there are others that cannot wait to see this
Groklaw killer site.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Greebo on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 04:16 AM EDT |
Don't waste your time visiting DarlMcbride.com.
It's full of the spin and
hype that we have come to know and love.
A good example of that is this,
from Darl's site :
The second development was an admission by Open
Source leader Bruce Perens that UNIX System V code (owned by SCO) is, in fact,
in Linux, and it shouldn’t be there. Mr. Perens stated that there is “an error
in the Linux developer’s process” which allowed UNIX System V code that “didn’t
belong in Linux” to end up in the Linux kernel
But if you read Bruce's
statement in context :
In this case, there was an error in the Linux
developer's process (at SGI), and we lucked out that it wasn't worse. It turns
out that we have a legal right to use the code in question, but it doesn't
belong in Linux and has been removed.
These slides have several C syntax
errors and would never compile. So, they don't quite represent any source code
in Linux. But we've found the code they refer to. It is included in code
copyrighed by AT&T and released as Open Source under the BSD license by
Caldera, the company that now calls itself SCO. The Linux developers have a
legal right to make use of the code under that license. No violation of SCO's
copyright or trade secrets is taking place.
You can find the comment here
a> along with the rest of the thread.
Darl quoting out of context. Who
would have thought it!
The rest of the site is just as bad, but i'm not
going to waste my time refuting it.
Greebo --- -----------------------------------------
Recent Linux Convert and Scared Cat Owner [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 04:19 AM EDT |
I am beginning to get a little bored of SCO. We need a web-site tracking who is
buying SCO software, in what quantities, and a list of the resellers.
Then we need to start investigating which of these companies is closest to the
profit/loss areas. Then we need to push the tipping point on SCO's customers.
I realise that this is not plesant, but in the real world of IT, this is how
execs think and work.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: radix2 on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 04:20 AM EDT |
How is this new website going to differ from this one opened in September or
thereabouts? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: inode_buddha on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 05:28 AM EDT |
Yahoo..... just deleted my account there. Thanks for listening, I feel much
better now. </rant=off>
---
"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price." --
Richard M. Stallman[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: lordmhoram on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 05:32 AM EDT |
In
http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=2415&Page=1
there's an interesting little snippet to the effect that, although SCO owns
prosco.net, it doesn't own prosco.org and prosco.com (the author wonders how
long it will be before SCO launches more legal actions to secure them.)
(BTW, I couldn't resist trying whois on antisco.net, .com and .org - .net is
taken (not by SCO) but both the last two are available - at the moment, anyway!)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- prosco - Authored by: jmc on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 07:54 AM EDT
- prosco - Authored by: Kalak on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 10:15 AM EDT
- prosco - Authored by: jmc on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 11:40 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 07:31 AM EDT |
Hi,
just followed the link to Darlie's site, and what do I find? Only links to
www.sco.com, and among others:
http://www.sco.com/darlmcbride/unixtree/unixhistory01.html
which tells the same lies as earlier this year... On www.sco.com/ibmlawsuit, the
link is still to levenez.com, though...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 08:16 AM EDT |
The thing that I am going to find most humorous is the statement Darl will make
about how in the first month of "ProSCO.com", there will be millions
of hits, thus proving that everyone wanted to get away from Groklaw.
The fact of the matter is that so many will be curious about what they are
doing, it's like driving past an automobile accident... you just HAVE to look.
Perpetual_Newbie[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rao on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 08:42 AM EDT |
n/t [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 08:45 AM EDT |
Baghdad Bob needs a job. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kberrien on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 09:20 AM EDT |
Sco needs their own Groklaw?
Last I checked, this was a legal case? This was copyright infringement,
truckloads of code....
If SCO feels to need to expend it energies in their own website (we can't call
it a blog - no comments) what does that tell you.
IBM has a website as well, it for selling IBM products.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Stumbles on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 09:31 AM EDT |
Propaganda usually works best when there is a kernel of truth in it.
---
You can tuna piano but you can't tuna fish.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jlar on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 09:31 AM EDT |
After much consideration SCO has decided to cancel their web site project.
Darl McBride puts it this way: "It turned out that it will take at least
35.000 monkey years to produce one article - assuming random typing. This is
more than twice the number of monkey years we have allocated in our legal
department - including the lawyers. Even with the generous bribe from Microsoft
and our year-long experience in the monkey business we simply cannot afford the
amount of bananas required to sustain such a large monkey population."
Another reason for cancelling the project came from a survey conducted by SCO
showing that potential visitors were not prepared to protect the SCO
intellectual property by signing a non-disclosure-agreement (NDA) prior to
reading the web pages. Upon asking whether we could read the NDA Darl McBride
stated: "The NDA itself is protected by itself. In effect we have created
the first recursive NDA. You will therefore have to sign the NDA before you read
it. This ensures strong intellectual property protection."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 09:32 AM EDT |
It is interesting how the disembling loudmouths at SCO want to claim the problem
is that people have NOT listened to them.
Actually anyone that really listens and tries to make sense of what the are
saying becomes a Groklaw regular.
SCO would be much smarter to plead the 5th.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: seanlynch on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 09:40 AM EDT |
"But with Baystar having converted its stake to common
stock and busily selling it off..."
What's really puzzling
to me is how steady SCOX stock proce has been during this Baystar
sell-off.
I thought that a major dump would result in a price drop, but it
seems incredibly steady., at least it should fluctuate up and down more than it
has been.
I guess if it was more cynical, I would say the a buyer and a
seller were trading at a pre-agreed upon price.
Is there any way that the
public can find out who is buying a publicly traded stock?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Here's a start - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 10:01 AM EDT
- Here's a start - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 10:47 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 09:47 AM EDT |
I hate to be a jerk, but the truth of the matter is that a statement of truth is
a summation of the facts which gives the truth teller the oportunity to spin the
facts. Thus, I always wonder if a person who says they are being truthful are,
in fact, telling the truth.
A real truth teller does not tell the truth, they just just state the facts for
all to draw their own conclusion.
Seems to me that PJ describes facts, peppered with irony, and offers a clearly
stated opinion of the facts. Until today, I cannot recall her ever telling the
"truth."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 09:56 AM EDT |
> Giving SCO the freedom to speak
> is a great way of helping them help us
This is absolutely the wisest comment I've seen on this subject.
The worst thing you can do to a verbal sociopath is to shut them up. That just
glorifies their position. Let them spout their ugly views so people can see
their true nature. That way, people will either stop listening or speak the
truth louder.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Adam B on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 10:24 AM EDT |
It's been said a thousand times by almost every member of the site, but
it
bears repeating: I do not think a single person here is not pro-SCO to the
extent that that stance does not conflict with the truth.
SCO's claims
are serious, and if true I condemn in the strongest possible
terms those
responsible for these acts. They are using a fair, balanced
weapon to attack
bad business practice. Contracts need to be sacred, even
when entered into
with smaller businesses and individuals. Copyrights are
important and much
fairer ways to protect that which should be protected in
software. This is not
a one-click patent smear or a trumped-up fraud case.
Applause goes to SCO for
choosing the ethical weapons for their duel.
That said, however, the
mere doing of something wrong in the right way
is not good enough. Not only
does SCO not have (or will not produce, but
Occam's Razor dictates that to be
implausible) any evidence of
these crimes, but they also have lied to
the public, their shareholders, and the
court about this. All they have to do
to get me and everyone here off their
backs, as PJ mentioned, is provide some
tiny, tiny shred of admissible
evidence supporting their claims (insert
obligatory truckloads reference). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: phrostie on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 10:27 AM EDT |
all anyone has ever asked from SCOX has been the truth, the Linux Community,
IBM, the Court.
saddly, we are all still waiting.
---
=====
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: fresont2 on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 10:47 AM EDT |
I noticed that SCO's news area of their website (www.sco.com/company/news/) had
no new news postings since May 19 (probably around the time when the media
stopped reporting SCO press releases as news).
I sent SCO an email several weeks back pointing out the fact that no new news
was being posted to their website. In a mocking tone, I asked if Groklaw was
now my only source for information on the SCO legal cases.
So when SCO says they've had requests to setup their own site about the legal
cases, they're probably misinterpreting my factious email—same way they
misinterpret a lot of things.
SCO's new website will probably be hilarious, so you can all thank me for the
soon-to-be-had good laughs![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: The Simulator on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 11:27 AM EDT |
I have to confess that I'm delighted Darl is back in action, free of the
constraints imposed on him by BayStar.
This whole SCO fiasco is so much more fun whenever he gets to throw in his
gaffes, mis-judgements and downright ignorance and stupidity. The man's a star!
Worthy of his own reality TV show!
Imagine if SCO had pursued their claims purely through the courts from day 1.
Who would have even heard of Groklaw? How many Linux/FOSS enthusiasts would
have bothered to dislike the very pitiable SCO? I'm guessing nowhere near as
many.
So, thanks Darl for helping to make Groklaw such a success! Long may you
continue...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 11:44 AM EDT |
It is very simple. Either SCO's claims are false or they have the worst legal
team in history. Let's go over the simple reasons.
1) Failure to mitigate damages and open acknowledgement of this. ("we are
not going to play that game") Mitigation of damages is not optional, and
will prevent you from collecting in a lawsuit.
2) Failure to show any proof of allegations of copyright infringement.
3) Removal of copyright infringement from their IBM case.
4) Failure to do the obvious if Linux is infringing: invoke the DMCA on
kernel.org. If Linux were truly infringing, they could legally do this. But,
if they did this with no proof, they would be guilty of perjury. They haven't
done it... what does that tell you?
Everything else is just smoke and mirrors and FUD.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 11:45 AM EDT |
This discussion reminds me of my training as a soccer (football to most of the
world) referee. I was taught that an impartial referee does not wind up with a
final score that is even; an impartial referee is one that lets the final score
reflect the relative abilities of the two teams.
Given the disparities between SCO and its opponents, I would have to say that
the adoption of a counter-SCO view is indeed a reflection of the truth. SCO has
had numerous opportunities to convince the world that their cause is reasonable
and has taken advantage of none of them. The only conclusion that I can come to
is that their cause is unreasonable and their actions unjust. Like many of us I
am willing to listen to substantive arguments for SCO; I've just not heard much
that is convincing for their side. This lack does not suggest, to me, that
Groklaw is at fault however.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 11:55 AM EDT |
Yeah, it appears to have been a Canopy orchestrated scam all along. Darl McBride
was just the front man. He has only done what has worked for him in the past -
unfortunately for him, this time he ran up against an outraged PJ.
Wielding Groklaw like the Sword of Damocles, PJ quickly sliced through the
Gordian Knot of Darl's lies and FUD exposing the rotten cabal at it's heart.
Thanks PJ, and thanks to all who have helped her in so many, many ways.
---
(GL) Groklaw Lurker
End the tyranny, abolish software patents.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: GLJason on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 12:34 PM EDT |
10/12/04 319 Joint Stipulation filed by SCO Grp to
extend
time for briefing re: IBM's motion for
partial summary jgm
on breach of contract
claims and motion for partial
summary jgm on
counterclaims for copyright infringment
8th
counterclaim(blk)
[Entry date
10/13/04]
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: beserker on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 12:56 PM EDT |
Hmmm... based on SCOG's own copyright theories perhaps PJ should carefully
monitor their new web site for infringements of GrokLaw's valuable IP. In fact,
they seem to have gotten the idea due to the success of GrokLaw so that should
'taint' them enough to be able to start discovery proceedings.
8^), but SCOG doesn't seem to need much (if any) more than this to kick off
their crusade.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 01:12 PM EDT |
My browser says that proSCO cannot be found.
Wise browser.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: om1er on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 01:43 PM EDT |
They plan to set up a website to tell their side of the story,
beginning November 1, and provide legal documents so you won't have to come to
Groklaw any more. They say they had requests to do that.
Who
are these people that requested SCOG put up a web site so they don't have to
come to Groklaw?
Why, the people who CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! That's
who.
--- Keeping an eye on the bouncing ball. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DannyB on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 02:26 PM EDT |
I hired a crack team of MIT rocket surgeons to do a deep dive into the
/usr/dict/words file of my illegal Linux system.
After using the
following command, which is their highly proprietary intellectual property (the
new gold)...
cat /usr/dict/words | grep sco
They then manually
filtered out the most interesting candidates, and billed me for less than 25,000
man
years!
abSCOund.com
diSCOmfort.com
diSCO
B>ncert.net
diSCOnnect.com
diSCOntinue.com
diSCOrd.com
diSCOunts.com
diSCOvery-abuse.com
eSCOr
ts.com
fiaSCO.net
microSCOpic.com
miSCOnception
.com
miSCOnduct.com
miSCOnstrue.com
SCOff.com
SCOlded.com
SCOop.com
SCOoping.com
SCOrched.com
SCOreboard.net
SCOrn.org
SCOrnful.co
m
SCOrpions.com
SCOundrels.com
SCOurge.com
SCOuring.com
SCOwl.com
undiSCOvered.com
--- The price of freedom is eternal litigation. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jaydee on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 03:58 PM EDT |
This is a noncommercial site run by volunteers who are beating you at PR. Go
figure.
What was that quote from Linus about Groklaw being open source principles
applied to legal research?
Seems that open source principles can be extraordinarily effictive in many
fields
---
If you find yourself in a fair fight... you didn't plan you mission properly.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 14 2004 @ 04:34 PM EDT |
I hope Darl & Co. are reading this...since I can't post to ProSCO...
It's not that they need someplace for their side to be heard, they need their
side to be true. Facts not FUD.
They need to prove that they own the copyrights to Unix. Without that proof,
none of the other lawsuits have any merit. They can't sue for something they
don't own.
The problem is...they can't prove it. In all of their legal manuevers and
Darl's rhetoric, they have proved nothing. Novell and AT&T people that were
around during the negotiations have poke holes in their case that you could
drive a battleship through. They can't even produce the proof they have claimed
to have had all along.
As for propaganda.....what has Darl been doing the past year or so? He's a
one-man propaganda machine.
I thought www.darlmcbride.com WAS their propaganda site.
I do begin to see their logic, convoluted as it is, in asking for AIX/Dynix
code. (I don't see why they need every version of every file ever written,
however.) IF (1.) they can prove they own Unix copyrights, and IF(2.)they prove
they own rights to Unix code developed by licensees, and IF(3.)IBM donated some
IBM-produced code to Linux.....but they have to prove the first 2 IF's before
they get to the 3rd. They haven't done that. They can't prove the 1st one.
I wonder if SCO has obtained illegal copies of AIX/Dynix source code for
comparison, but can't use them in court, being that they're illegal copies.
There may well be IBM-produced AIX/Dynix code in Linux, but it doesn't mean
squat if SCO doesn't own the rights to it. So far, it doesn't look like they
do.
SCO says the IBM case is about Contract issues, not IP copyrights, and at first
I thought that was true. But you can't breach a contract with a company that
doesn't have the rights to the IP they are licensing. So, it really is about IP
copyrights. You can't sell something you don't own. And, I should think, if
SCO doesn't own the rights to Unix is proported to be licensing, doesn't that
make them guilty of fraud?
It would seem to me, that SCO needs to prove ownership before any of the cases
can be settled. But maybe that's their strategy...keep the ownership in
question, long enough to spread FUD about Linux.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 15 2004 @ 08:14 PM EDT |
shouldn't it be named Borklaw? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|