|
|
| Correction to eWeek's PJ "Quotation" |
 |
|
Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 01:00 PM EST
|
A lot of you have sent me this article and a purported quotation by me:
"Red Hat is by no means the poster child for open-source utopia. Some,
such as Pamela Jones of Groklaw.com, argue that open-source distributors
are just so many "pay-for-a-license" software companies." First of all, I never said anything like that, ever. If you search all over Groklaw, I don't think you will be able to find a single negative word about Red Hat. Second, the reporter did not contact me prior to publication. Third, Red Hat offers software that comes to us under the GPL. The GPL forbids charging any fee for a license. Not a problem, eWeek. Groklaw was born to help educate journalists. It's in our mission statement. And I'm sure you will make a correction to that article, now that you know it's not a quotation or even a thought I've ever spoken or thought. And how about this for an idea? How about we have an arrrangement whereby you contact me if you wish to quote me on a subject, and that way we can both avoid such embarrassing moments? Sound like a plan? Just click on the little yellow envelope on the left, and presto, you will be able to email me. Oh, and P.S. It's Groklaw.net. UPDATE: I heard from eWeek, and they couldn't have been nicer. They just goofed, and they'll fix the story. That is as good as it gets.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Matt C on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 01:05 PM EST |
Wow. Just wow.
Should I begin questioning whether journalism-in-general is legitimate anymore?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 01:06 PM EST |
Gotta love it when hasty journalists put words in your mouth. Too bad they are
so hasty they don't check their facts, or confirm with primary sources.
On a darker note: what are the odds that this "PJ Quote" was
deliberately planted on some other web site and then "fed" to the
eWeek reporter? I doubt eWeek has an axe to grind but we know various other
people do..[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Asynchronous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 01:10 PM EST |
Technically... it's both. The .com and the .net are registered and piped here.
Many companies did (and do) that to keep someone from putting up a fake site
that a semi confused user might mistake as the real deal.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 01:12 PM EST |
| [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Reliant on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 01:12 PM EST |
| The little yellow envelope for contacting you, it's groklaw.com, not .net [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: wholeflaffer on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 01:13 PM EST |
| From my posting in the OT section of the 'Gates vs. Denmark' article:
The
article with PJ's quote is this
one.
Here is the quote from PJ, in better context:
The problem I
still see is that Sun wants to drop the F and run its own race with the OSS
part, defining it in their own narrow way, and by dropping the F I mean not
accepting the GPL. Is that enough? Well, to each his own. 2 Do you hate someone
because he'd rather develop FreeBSD than Linux? I don't. Is Linux afraid of a
little competition? Not if it's fair. I tried to help them with the license,
because that is what the community does. We try to help each other and we'll
help anyone trying to be a part of things, even if they don't get it all
perfectly at first. I wish corporations could understand what community really
means and check their super-aggressive competition at the door. That hasn't
happened yet. It matched the pay-for-a-license software world. It's
discordant in the free world.
But, although I tried to help, my bottom line
hasn't changed a bit. I'm still a GPL girl. And I hope someday they'll join us,
as the song says, and the Open Source world can live as one.
Search me
as to how they pulled that into the eWeek article.
[ Reply to This | # ] [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: producer on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 01:15 PM EST |
Time for this boy to get a call from some friendly lawyers.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 01:29 PM EST |
"Red Hat is by no means the poster child for open-source utopia. Some, such
as Pamela Jones of Groklaw.com, argue that open-source distributors are just so
many "pay-for-a-license" software companies."
The statement really doesn't make much sense really. I can agree that Red Hat is
by no means "the" poster child for open-source. Maybe the Linux
Kernel, but not RedHat. As far as the rest of the statement, it just doesn't
really say anything.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- What about Tux? - Authored by: seanlynch on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 02:23 PM EST
- Hmmm. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 04:22 PM EST
- Hmmm. - Authored by: ptb on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 06:04 PM EST
- Hmmm. - Authored by: Tyro on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 06:09 PM EST
- Hmmm. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 07:00 PM EST
- It says what it means a subscription - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 07:03 PM EST
- Hmmm. - Authored by: Trepalium on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 09:23 PM EST
- Hmmm. - Authored by: ptb on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 03:58 AM EST
- Hmmm. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 02:26 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: joef on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 01:47 PM EST |
Unfortunately, that "Little Yellow Envelope" is only 14*10 pixels
according to the "view page info" menu on Mozilla. And it has no text
associated with it unless you do a mouse-over. While I know it's there and have
used it myself, it sure would be easy to miss by someone unfamiliar with the
site.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 02:02 PM EST |
It is regretable that Scott failed to check with PJ before printing the quote,
since the article was posing the position that a responsible IT executive should
be carefully evaluating Open Source code rather than blindly following the MS
pack.
It is interesting to note that he did not mention IBM when he
was talking about value in the computer world. IBM doesn't even have it's own
distribution, depending on companies such as Redhat and Novell to provide a
proven distribution, but providing consulting services based on these
distributions, and the hardware to run it on.
About once a week now you
read about a company migrating to Linux on an IBM zSeries mainframe, such
as:
http://www.computerworld.com/managementtopics/management/
itspending/story/0,10801,99732,00.html
where a number of blade servers
replace hundreds of Unix and Wintel server boxes and reduce support head count
by 60 percent.
Hint to Wintel Support Engineers, read the handwriting
on the wall.
Anyone who doubts IBM's commitment to Linux is grossly
under-estimating the company. This is opinion is based on observations of IBM's
actions, as opposed to rhetoric from certain software vendors. IBM is following
the Nike slogan, Just Do It!!!!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 02:03 PM EST |
Shouldn't that be 'comments belong to whomever'?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: newton on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 02:03 PM EST |
| I think I've worked it out: it's an "opinion" piece, so it's obivously the
author's opinion that you think that way, PJ!
Better set him straight,
huh? :-)
- mark [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sjf on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 02:39 PM EST |
| But it's harder to take you out of context if they contact you;-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 02:41 PM EST |
Since when does the GPL forbid charging a fee for a license? It only forbids
charging an excessive fee to get the source with the binary. You could charge
$1000 for a binary license and $1000 for the source and still be in compliance,
since the GPL says the fee for the source should not exceed the fee for the
binary. Of course, once you have a copy you can give it away for free, and you
could just get a free copy from someone else.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 02:43 PM EST |
I googled for these terms:
"pay-for-a-license" groklaw
and came up with a few hits where the quote might of came from you/your site...
http://www.varlinux.org/vl/html/modules/stories/index.php?author=Pamela%20Jones&
amp;start=60
http://sourcefrog.net/weblog/2003/07/24 [some one else's quote]
Also your email link says Groklaw.com...
I understand your concern about being misquoted though (look how much damage of
that quote from OSRM on Linux's 283 patent infringements cost), or journalists
taking statements out of context. I agree with you, that if they want a
statement, they should just ask you directly with a properly phrased question.
I'm sure the individual who wrote that article didn't mean to undermine you in
any way.
Thanks again for all your efforts PJ, much appreciated by the community.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 02:55 PM EST |
I see that the Eweek article no longer contains the
offending quote. Eweek has a habit of altering stories
after they have been published, without comment. I think
they should print some kind of note acknowledging the
change. How can publications claim to want our trust when
they sweep mistakes under the rug? Everyone makes
mistakes- it's the cover-up that breaks trust. This
happens a lot on Eweek, if I were more motivated I would
monitor and track their habitual "invisible" corrections.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 02:58 PM EST |
Just looked at the article, and apparently the correction is inline, as the
quote mentioned here isn't actually in the article on eWeek now. Not even so
much as an apology or correction note.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 04:28 PM EST |
As Scott Adams (creator of the “Dilbert” comic strip) so eloquently put it, “A
reporter can spend hours painstakingly researching the facts about a story, or
just write what someone says, both approaches pay the same.”[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Bill The Cat on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 04:57 PM EST |
UPDATE: I heard from eWeek, and they couldn't have been nicer.
They just goofed, and they'll fix the story. That is as good as it
gets. They did NOT correct the article - they simply removed
their so-called quote. There is no mention in the current article on-line that
they made any mistake. They should have stated that they made an error and then
put in the correct information. Since they didn't do this, there is no
correction. ---
Bill Catz [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 04:58 PM EST |
| PJ on your third point, you are incorrect, there is no restriction on charging
money for GPL'ed software, there is only a restriction on what you can charge
for the source code. Here is the URL and a quote directly from the
site.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies
is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special
situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one
exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must
accompany binary-only release.)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 07:40 PM EST |
The GPL does _not_ prohibit charging money for a licence. And the FSF actually
encourages doing exactly that.
It only stipulates that this licence must then include _all_ rights under the
GPL and the complete source code (or a guarantee that you can get it at no other
charge).
I am not allowed to break into the server of a free software developer and steal
software that he was intending to licence for wagonloads of money under the
GPL.
I can demand whatever amount of money I want from anybody for licencing GPLed
stuff to him, as long as the licence includes all the rights in the package. I
am not allowed to split the licence package into smaller bits (like binary-only
or don't-copy-and-pass-on). But for the _full_, complete licence to the GPLed
work, even GPLed work written by somebody else, I can charge whatever I desire.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: snorpus on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 08:50 PM EST |
| I wonder in what way eWeek "goofed." Did the reporter just make up the quote,
mis-quote, misinterpret a comment PJ made on another topic, attribute a quote to
PJ that was made by someone else, or what?
---
73/88 de KQ3T ---
Montani Semper Liberi
Comments Licensed: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 08:53 PM EST |
All I can say it there are very few folks classed with PJ. In her case when
many of us see a quetionable quote the first response is to question the quoter
instead of the quotee. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 10:16 PM EST |
What is wrong with some people? Do you not understand you cannot charge for a
license to GPL software. Red Hat does not do this. Nor Novell, or Mandrakesoft,
or any other Linux company.
They are charging for services. Red Hat is charging for indemnification,
telephone support and then bandwidth for downloading RHEL. They also prevent
redistribution not through an EULA, but through trademark law (which is why
CentOS can legally redistribute RHEL, they remove all of the trademarks). The
license is still between you and the copyright owners of the software (via the
GPL).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Darth23 on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 12:13 AM EST |
(I'm reposting my Yahoo-scox post here:)
10. All the folks in Lindon were hungover after those wild Utah Mardi Gras
celebrations
9. SCO insists that it cannot be expected to file its 10K until IBM fully
complies with discovery order
8. Too much Valentine's Day chocolate left SCO feeling bloated and sluggish
7. Cost cutting measure reduced staff to 3 workers and 4,200 lawyers
6. Mean Mister Mustard sleeps in the park,
Shaves in the dark trying to save paper
5. Cancellation of Star Trek Enterprise taking a great emotional toll
4. Printers were too busy laughing hysterically to actually print the damn
thing
3. Final Draft had to be recalled after failure to secure the rights to the
copyrighted phrase "SCO is Toast"
2. Company in turmoil after being introduced to Darl's replacement, Carly
Fiorina
.
.
And the number one reason the 10-K deadline was missed:
1) Everytime SCO tries to file, its pants catch on fire.
---
"high-end mathematicians, rocket scientist, modeling type
guy"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: darkonc on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 07:44 AM EST |
| I've been on the inside of enough news stories to have a really jaundiced eye
about what the mainsteam press publishes.
A few years ago, the local daily
rag ("Vancouver Sun") had a big media blitz with the logo "Check everything. We
did.".
I kept on wanting to take a piece of paper to one of their posters,
and remove the first period. ---
Powerful, committed communication.
Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: CPD on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 04:01 PM EST |
Doug wrote:
"Now you have raised an interesting point that I don't have an answer for.
This is, if I take the program as above & sell perscon A a copy & A
gives it to B without my permition, what are my rights re my price for the
program. The GPL clearly states that A can modify the source & on-sell or
give away the result. The issue here is what rights anyone has to the
modifications in regard to on selling."
Doug, you don't grok the GPL. There is no issue here, the GPL is quite clear.
You have no right to control what A does with the software and you have no right
to any moneys from B (or A in regards to the transfer). That's it, plain and
simple.
If you want to make money from software by controlling the distribution, don't
release under the GPL.
Colin
---
Just when I thought it couldn't get any wierder, SCO proved me wrong again.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
