decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more... 		decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
CBR's Open Source VIPs, Part One
Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 11:35 AM EDT

Computer Business Review's Matthew Aslett has an article which lists CBR's list of the VIPs of Open Source, those individuals who have helped Linux become established in the industry, and it has interviews with many of the folks on the list. Their readers helped them make up the list. Judge Kimball is on it, although obviously he didn't grant an interview. In fact, in his case, I doubt he even knows about it. But readers know the importance of this litigation, and since this is a list of those with the most influence, he does belong on the list. Here's a snip from the article:
Open source is about people as much as it is products and companies, but the role of individuals in establishing the open source industry is often overlooked given headlines like "IBM makes $100m investment in Linux".

To celebrate the role of the individual in establishing open source as the market force it is today, CBR decided to put together a list of the most important people in open source, and solicited the views of its Open Source Weblog to help compile it....

The CBR Open Source VIPs represent the individuals who are considered to be the most influential people in open source right now.

I am on the list, too, amazingly enough. So, thanks if you suggested me. I hear a lot of folks did. There is an interview with me, and that is the reason why I'm mentioning all this. A couple of reporters who have recently contacted SCO about a news story Groklaw published had the odd experience of SCOfolk asking the reporter if I am a 'real person'.

As it happens, Computer Business Review asked me something related to that too in the interview, which isn't surprising since SCO's theories of who I am are of longstanding.

So, here is my answer, one small part of the interview.

CBR: Will you ever reveal your "secret identity"?

PJ: My answer is a bit complex. On a simple plane, I hope not.

I not only never expected anyone to read what I wrote, I never wanted to be famous. I still don't. I never tried for it. And while I don't mind meeting people one to one and telling them who I am, I don't want to feel I can't walk into a computer store or go to a conference without someone pointing me out.

Can you imagine living your whole life like that? I don't know how Linus does it. Or RMS [Richard Stallman]. But I'd hate it and I avoid it with all my ingenuity.

I never volunteered to be a public person, and I don't want to be one. I don't want to play my life out in public. But on a deeper level, that doesn't mean I have a secret identity any more than you do. I don't have a photo of you or know where you live or what your religion is or what your family members do, but I know you, by your work, over time. It's the same with me.

I'm no more secret than you are. This is a real conversation between two real human beings. No? Bloggers just have to be a bit more careful than your kind of journalist, so kooks don't show up on their doorstep, because there's no employer as a buffer. SCO made a big issue, because they wished to detract from the respect people have for me, I think. That's all.

That last part is really the proof of me being a real person, even if you've not yet met me in a one-to-one situation. It reminds me of something that happened to me years ago, when I was trying to decide if God existed or not. Someone said to me that she thought he must, because the physical creation reflects personality. Think of your funny little cat, she said, or flowers or the beauty of the stars that can bring tears to our eyes or make us feel so small. There's nothing impersonal or cold about that physical creation. And we respond to it with feelings too, she added, just like we do to a fine painting, and we never ask if that painting was done by a real person, because we'd know it even if the painting is unsigned.

Well, I found that convincing enough to continue the pursuit for an answer personally, although you may not, but my point here is secular: you can tell from an artist's creative work what the individual is like as a person. Isn't that true? You can figure out Hemingway's personality quite well just from his novels. I know a lot about Picasso from his work. And I think you can figure me out too, by reading Groklaw all these years. My heart is in it. No robot could write what I do. No committee either. It's personal, it has my personality in it, and it reflects my intelligence, my interests. And where there is personality there is a person. Where there is intelligence, there is a brain, and that implies a person too. A 'real person'.

Anyway, that is my answer. I know it's way over SCO's head, and they won't understand what I just wrote.

But you will.

CBR also asked me another question, and and I think my answer will help you developers out there to understand why I care so much about the ability to modify:

CBR: What was your level of interest in open source software before you started Groklaw?

PJ: Very high. I loved using GNU/Linux, just simply loved it. I feel like I can breathe when I am using it, and it's not a feeling I ever have with closed source software. I know, or can verify, that no one is secretly making my computer phone home or recording my hard drive number or making my machine a zombie or whatever.

I can see whatever I want to and can do whatever I want to, without any restrictions as a user. It's just a wonderful feeling of freedom. So when I thought SCO might ruin all of that, I definitely wanted to help, to contribute back according to my skills. That's how the community works. You donate what you can. Groklaw's SCO coverage is my contribution, my thank you.

Anyway, I thought you'd want to know about the article and my interview. I do very few these days, but Matt was so persistent, I finally gave in. So now I know his personality a bit better too, even though we've never met face-to-face.

: )

By the way, you are on the list too, whether you are a developer or an end user:

John/Jane Doe

The unsung open source developers. Basically anyone who has ever contributed code to or suggested a patch for an open source project - even if it got rejected. Without them, there would be no open source model.

"Whatever activity you do, even if it is just using the software, you are part of the community," said Marten Mickos, MySQL CEO, at a recent event in London.

  


CBR's Open Source VIPs, Part One | 334 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Typographical Errors Here
Authored by: entre on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 11:40 AM EDT
For PJ

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic posts here
Authored by: TonyW on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 11:53 AM EDT
ANd please make your links clickable. Just follow the instruction in red,
change the Post Mode to HTML formatted and don't forget to preview.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How Groklaw became widely known
Authored by: hopethishelps on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 11:55 AM EDT

When a lot of people suddenly showed up, and to this day I have no idea how that happened except that it was word of mouth

How I, and I suspect a lot of other people, discovered Groklaw was from an article on Slashdot. Slashdot had a huge number of readers at the time, and most of them tend to be technically inclined, and to know about free software.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Private Life
Authored by: pgmer6809 on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 11:59 AM EDT
Dear PJ:
While I understand perfectly, and sympathize with, your aversion to fame, I
think I speak for most of us here on Groklaw when I say that just once, when
this is over, you could show up at a conference or a convention or whatever so
we could give you the standing ovation you so richly deserve.
Pgmer6809

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Real Person
Authored by: seanzig on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 12:05 PM EDT
> Where there is intelligence, there is a brain, and that
> implies a person too. A 'real person'.

OR... you could be the first machine to pass the Turing test.
I guess we'll wait and see if SCO tries that approach in its next attempt to
discredit you. :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Secret vs Private - A Missed Distinction
Authored by: OmniGeek on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 12:13 PM EDT
It's not that PJ has a "secret" life, but rather that, like the rest
of us, she has a "private" one. Seems to me that the interviewer
failed to make that important distinction. (Of course, SCO and its minions
deliberately conflated the two; that doesn't make them the same, though.)

For my part, I too would rather not have my personal data spattered across the
pages of anyone's Web site. Doesn't mean I have anything to hide, just that I
want to be a private figure rather than a public one.

---
My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on
espresso.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Doesn't it seem strange
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 12:25 PM EDT
That Marten Mickos should be quoted?

After all, wasn't it his decision to have MySQL support SCO and its attempts to
run a software protection racket? That decision got MySQL onto a bunch of
corporate blacklists and (I hope) cost the company a lot of money.

What the heck is he doing here, pretending to be a champion of open source
software?

[ Reply to This | # ]

I beg to differ
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 12:28 PM EDT
I never volunteered to be a public person

Yes, actually, you did. You just didn't grasp how public you'd get. Big difference being thrown into the public versus hanging out sign and saying "Come and get it!", as you did.

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ: Philosopher
Authored by: Matt C on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 12:38 PM EDT
"you can tell from an artist's creative work what the individual is like as
a person."

So true. We stress a lot about FUD around here, because it does have an impact.
But the fact is that honest, sincere communication efforts are self-legitimating
to a certain extent. One should have a healthy amount of skepticism, of course,
but so often you read something that just rings true with human experience and
you can (tentatively) accept it as true without having to research the backstory
& possible ulterior motives.

Groklaw is generally like that. Open culture in general is like that.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Congratulations PJ
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 12:52 PM EDT
We always knew you were a Very Importani and Very Special Person.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

About "domainsbyproxy.com"
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 12:54 PM EDT
groklaw.net is registered through them to protect your identify. Are you
bothered that (what I can only assume is) their business method is allegedly
patent pending? Is their service worth the price of rewarding those who file
spurious patents on obvious methods?

[ Reply to This | # ]

CBR's Open Source VIPs, Part One
Authored by: Nick_UK on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 01:01 PM EDT
"By the way, you are on the list too, whether you are a
developer or an end user:
John/Jane Doe
The unsung open source developers. Basically anyone who
has ever contributed code to or suggested a patch for an
open source project - even if it got rejected. Without
them, there would be no open source model.
"Whatever activity you do, even if it is just using the
software, you are part of the community," said Marten
Mickos, MySQL CEO, at a recent event in London."

This comment is perhaps the smallest biggest thing that
non-FOSS/OSS proponents cannot ever beat.

Over the years, I have submitted a few patches in a lot of
projects (including Linux kernel!), published a bit of
code etc. etc. and very soon it all adds up. Let alone
bug reporting on top of that.

Thousands of patches a day by the users is unbeatable in
any development model other than FOSS/OSS - no wonder it
is truly superior software.

Well done everybody!

Nick

[ Reply to This | # ]

CBR's Open Source VIPs, Part One
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 01:06 PM EDT
You are wise. Fame is a curse.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What is Reality, Papa?
Authored by: jplatt39 on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 01:14 PM EDT
From the day you started filling a public need there have been two PJs. There
is the private person who you ask us to respect, and there is the public or
mythical founder of Groklaw. I'm prepared to try to respect both.

I understand this means that I shouldn't confuse them. Which is why I'm
prepared to project on the public figure such wish-fulfillment fantasies as
finally getting rid of Von Daniken. I don't consider that disrespectful because
I would do so only in the context of suggesting that this non-information is as
relevant as any information the private figure chooses not to provide.

I can appreciate that the affair of the "expose" was very upsetting,
however this latest piece suggests the possibility of tSCOg-sothoth needs some
charity. Asking reporters if you are even real sounds delusional to me.

I don't take the concept of Blogging too seriously. Before it came along I read
a lot of small and self-published journals with varying concepts of
accountability. At the same time, reading these sensitized me to the way
allegedly respectable news organizations were playing fast and loose with their
readership. The Jayson Blair scandal at the Times didn't surprise me, and I
don't think it's affected their coverage of most minority issues, which I tend
to take with a lump of salt. They own the Boston Globe, which has been
discussed here and which today is accused of having published a fabricated memo
about the Big Dig. I appreciate the amount of work which you and others put
into this. I also appreciate how this medium provides ample opportunity for
correction in real time. You are worth reading because you are conscientious.
This is work done well. And you deserve your place on that list.

At the same time, from a perspective way out in left field, I have to suggest
that questioning your reality is as valid as questioning John Titor's reality.
There are substantive differences of course, such as what makes him real to me
is that I find his philosophy and assumptions so threatening. In the course of
rejecting him I find myself looking at myself and what I think I know and the
question of whether he is a hoax eventually becomes more of an irritant than
anything else. Whether a man from the future (or a future) walked this Earth or
not, "John Titor" existed in some form because his teachings exist.

tSCOg-sothoth is holding on to a similar irrelevancy. Of course what we are
doing is right so PJ and her associates have to be some kind of conspiracy.
This is a great way to avoid looking at the facts. In a worst case scenario,
where the conspiracy theory is correct, you are as much a front for, or more
properly the distributor of a lot of serious work which dissects and analyzes
their claims. If you work for IBM then you have gotten some good legal minds to
do some of their work for free, and tSCOg-sothoth doesn't seem to get that they
will probably have to face a better-informed legal team because of you. Of
course if you do not work for IBM then all of the above is true too, except
possibly the part about John Titor. Should we be telling them that you and he
are the same? Naw, that's uncharitable.

Your comments today have convinced me that at least Darl McBride and possibly
others honestly think that the day they make it into court in front of a jury,
they are going to cream IBM. In other words, I believe they are deluded.

I care who you are enough to not care. It would be nice if they could do the
same, but there are bad apples everywhere.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why SCO does not get it.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 01:26 PM EDT
You see, PJ, you have a major quality in your personality that no one (at least
no "public" figure at SCO) has; that quality is humility.

They just can not understand why a "real person" would not want fame
and fortune, and to be quoted, pictured, and profiled in every way imaginable.

You do what you do because it comes from the heart. It seems to me that you
treat OSS like it is your child. You would do anything to protect it, yet you
admit its shortcomings, and that it is not perfect. But it is that
imperfectness that gives it uniqueness.

SCO only understands money, fame, and greed. Three qualities that we do not see
in your personality.

I have to admit, during the great "smoke out" that SCO and everyone
tried to pull, I was kinda of interested in finding out who the "real
person" was behind the PJ name. I thought it would be interesting to find
out if you are a grandma, a mom, an ex-IBM employee, a bitter ex-SCO employee,
or a consortium of IBM, Novell, and RedHat execs. Now? Doesn't bother me a
bit, because from my experience you speak the truth and speak from the heart. I
read and participate in Groklaw because of what you say and do, not who you
are.

A heartfelt congratulations on this, you certainly deserve it!

[ Reply to This | # ]

How right you are.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 01:40 PM EDT
"And I think you can figure me out too, by reading Groklaw all these
years."

So true.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How Groklaw became widely known
Authored by: jazzyjoe on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 01:43 PM EDT
I absolutely don't know anymore how I came to Groklaw. Maybe it was through
LinuxToday, the site I frequented most before Groklaw. I was drawn by the great
number of responses the articles generated.

Up until this day I still come to Groklaw, not just for the articles, but also
for the many responses from insightful, funny, angry, or just plain different
characters. PJ's work is the best, but it really comes to life because of all
the people joining in.

I guess that's Open Source at its best.

[ Reply to This | # ]

...... and then there is the public or mythical PJ
Authored by: pfusco on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 03:49 PM EDT
Flame me, burn me, ban me... but, I dont understand the goddess like worship the members of this site shower on PJ.

Yes, I think she is doing a wonderful job with the leagal aspects of the Open Source World, Yes, she is doing a great job with what she started this site/ blog for.

Respect I can see and understand, Admiration in her skillsets and her clearness of vision and the thoroughness of work. Clarity in how she lays things out... but. worship? Sometimes, from some of these drooling posts it seems like nothing more than pure a** kissing or internet puppy love.

There are far to many false gods and pretenders to the thrones out there already to add another.

Keep it real, keep your pride, keep her human

---
only the soul matters in the end

[ Reply to This | # ]

Anonymous pamphleteering
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 04:27 PM EDT
The right to protest anonymously is very important to our freedom because that
depends on our ability to know the truth. If SCO and its backers had been
able to find PJ, I wonder if they would have found a way to silence her.

[ Reply to This | # ]

CBR's Open Source VIPs, Part One
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 05:45 PM EDT
PJ: You're a hero.

-- e-user

[ Reply to This | # ]

Heinlein would be the more obvious reference.
Authored by: DrHow on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 06:11 PM EDT
PJ wrote, "You can figure out Hemingway's personality quite well just from
his novels." I think that the remark would apply equally well to Robert
Heinlein and that such a reference would be more appropriate on Groklaw since
Heinlein invented the word "grok".

[ Reply to This | # ]

Proof of being a real person
Authored by: jturner on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 06:40 PM EDT
> That last part is really the proof of me being a real
> person, even if you've not yet met me in a one-to-one
> situation

Quite right. I was surprised to see anyone doubting that - emulating you would
be quite a feat to pull off, even more so than doing it all in the first place!

Still, it's only natural that people are curious...
I think I did see a photo somewhere, a long time ago ;-).

[ Reply to This | # ]

UNIX vs. BSD: Quanity
Authored by: GLJason on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 06:43 PM EDT
I was just reading the BSD Settlement after rereading the Groklaw story on it and had to chuckle at the disparity in the sizes of the lists. There are four categories of lists...

  1. Restricted Files - files USL contends contains UNIX materials and/or disclose methods and concepts
  2. UNIX Derived Files - files USL contends contain UNIX materials, but may be distributed in BSD (by the university and others with USL's consent
  3. Unrestricted BSD Files - basically everything else in 4.4 BSD(Lite)
  4. BSD Derived Materials - files contained in UNIX that the University of Berkley contends are derived from their code
First you have the Restricted Files, 26 of them. Next you have the Unix Derived Files, 91 of them. I dow nloaded 4.4 BSD-Lite from PlanetMirror to see how many files were in it, it looks like there are 9649 source files (3284 include files and 6365 .c source files). Now you get to the files that are in UNIX that are derived from materials created by the University, 2112 of them!

So USL only contended that 91 of the 9649 files in 4.4BSD-Lite were even derived from UNIX files at all and allowed them to be distributed so the methods and concepts in them aren't protectable. Also any methods and concepts in 4.4BSD-Lite are made publicly available with USL's consent, so SCO cannot get IBM for divulging any of those. I would think the file structure would fall under Scenes a Faire (spelling?) in that there are only so many ways to do it and that is public to anyone using Unix, not just developers and licensees. Also I'm sure BSD mimics that to some extent. ELF is a public standard came up with and sanctioned by both Novell and Santa Cruz (among many others), but even if that weren't the case, I think it would fall under the interopability exception in copyright law. It certainly isn't and has never been a trade secret or method and concept that must be protected by those contracts.

The other items I've seen mentioned appear to be things that were entirely developed by IBM or Sequent. I find it ridiculous to hear SCO claim those must be protected by a 20 year old contract for antiquated source code that contained none of the methods, concepts, or code involved. I find it mind-boggling that IBM hasn't already shot that to theory death, but it isn't the first time. I've thought that about things before in this case, only to be happily surprised when IBM did shoot them down at the time that fit in best with their strategy.

[ Reply to This | # ]

PAINFULLY missing
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 07:09 PM EDT
Richard Stallman - undeniably the founder of FOSS

Eben Moglen - the Guardian at the Gate of FOSS

Those who took a chance to create the first "big distros" and the
companies to support them, such as RedHat and SUSE (and yes, even Caldera -
before they got stupid).

Anybody who uses Debian ;-)

Many folks who found new places for Linux, i.e., "Embedded" into every
type of inventive and creative thing imaginable. Folks like Jeff Dionne and
others from uCLinux. Or people like Matt Asay who went out and preached to the
suits - even when they threw eggs. There are many others.

O'Reilly and others who get the word out in high quality and fantastically
usable form every single day. The folks who man the help desks and blogs and
mailing lists. The folks at the local Linux "install fests". People
at Mozilla. People who work on OpenOffice.

What a fantastic list they could make! Not that I'm arguing with their choices
(most anyway). But CBR didn't even begin to scratch the surface of the tip of
the iceberg.

Looking for heroes? I see more and more Linux on airplanes each week, more
magazines at Borders and B&N, books galore, and more people who don't say
"Huh?" when you mention the name Linux or the concept of FOSS. You
don't have to look very far. Even some CEO's (like Sam Palmisano, maybe even
Larry Elison) are getting close - their support, use, and defense of open
source, open standards, open architecture, and real computing FREEDOM are
refreshing. Especially when you compare it to the goofballs at places like SCOG
and Microsoft!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Pardon me for being cynical...
Authored by: josmith42 on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 08:08 PM EDT

Dear PJ,

"Anyway, that is my answer. I know it's way over SCO's head, and they won't understand what I just wrote."

I believe SCO understands perfectly well what you just wrote. I think they choose to ignore all the signs that you are a real person, and not a committee or somesuch.

Even if you work for IBM or Novell or something, or you're a man and not a woman, or whatever the smear campaign of the month is, they can't deny that there is a unique style in your writing, and that one person, and only one person, could have written it.

They are just trying to ward you off regardless of what they actually think, because you are the fly in their ointment of the case of public opinion, which is all this case was about anyway.

---
This comment was typed using the Dvorak keyboard layout. :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

CBR's Open Source VIPs, Part One
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 08:13 PM EDT
Oh, so it's an *EMAIL* interview... So, do we really know that li'l miss PJ is
an *actual* person and *not* a very sophisticated BlogBot???

:)

Paul

[ Reply to This | # ]

CBR's Open Source VIPs, Part One
Authored by: zizban on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 08:16 PM EDT
Let me take a guess at who PJ is based on what she has posted here over the
years.

PJ is an experienced paralegal in her late thirties/early 40s. She is a caring,

sensitive human who is shy in social situations but has a deep sense of social
justice. She is much more dedicted to the idea of FOSS than I am and is a
talented writer.

She seems OK to me. I'd bring her home to mother :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why I came to Groklaw, and why I read Groklaw
Authored by: hal2k1 on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 08:29 PM EDT
It is because you can't get this sort of stuff anywhere else. There is no better
place for deriiving inspiration, joy, furious anger or melodrama, even on TV!

You can't get it for Windows, either.

[ Reply to This | # ]

CBR's Open Source VIPs, Part One
Authored by: ine on Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 09:45 PM EDT
Along with gratefully acknowledging PJ's overall role in GrokLaw, we should also
remember to thank dburns, the member who gained access to the AT&T-BSDi
agreement, which PJ cited as GrokLaw's greatest achievement to date.

[ Reply to This | # ]

CBR's Open Source VIPs, Part One
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 05 2006 @ 07:30 AM EDT
Originally, from IBM, all the source for everything was 'open'. IBM (and the
customers) then figured it was cheaper to service, if only the IBM engineers
made the needed changes and released the same to everyone. That was pretty much
a 'closed source' proposition. Getting IBM to guarantee AIX for a year will cost
you less than getting IBM to guarantee Linux for a year, particularly if it is
your special flavour of Linux.
Then, every so often, we figure that the 'closed source' code does not conform
with requirements ... someone needs to fix the text of the documentation, or
revise things to support a new processor or device, or make a word processor
conform to ISO standards for reviseable documents ... and the source has to be
opened again.
It's a continual iteration, around 'cost of service' and 'freedom to innovate'.

It has nothing to do will Bill Gates wanting to sell Windows like paperback
fiction. Sure, he sells it, but it is less than clear that it is useful to those
who buy it. He sells it too cheaply to be able to deliver profitably on any kind
of guarantee, and eventually that will make him stop.
It is like buying glue; it probably is good glue, and the shopkeeper is certain
he has the right to sell the glue; but unless you pay extra for a qualified
glue application engineer to use the glue on your behalf, no-one will warrant
that it will actually stick anything.
Also nothing to do with SCO chancing their arm taking IBM to court. Do you
believe SCO could profitably sell warranties to your Linux for only $699 per CPU
for the lifetime of the system ? Of course not, that is selling things like
paperback fiction, too.
You can pay Bill Gates, or SCO, their 'licence fee'; but when things break (as
with Internet connectivity they surely will) you will have to fix it yourself or
discard and start afresh.
Bill Gates (or his successor) is now starting on paths that will succeed as
Internet grows; like XBox and commercial home entertainment.
Hopefully he will build a profitable business there, and leave behind the
businesses of 'un-guaranteed commercial operating system for personal computer'
and 'un-guaranteed commercial office software for personal computer' which have
been commoditised and overtaken by 'un-guaranteed free operating system for
personal computer' and 'un-guaranteed free office software for personal
computer'.

The old stuff is gone, like typewriters and typewriter ribbons. IBM not doing
personal computers or OS/2 any more. That is Lenovo and Serendipity Systems.
Commercial build-out is complete, it is time to move on.

The whole show.

[ Reply to This | # ]
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.06 seconds