-> http://heise.de/newstick er/data/jk-27.08.03-000/

i hope you can read it through babelfish. the most interesting paragraph is the following one:

Kunden, die ihn fragen, verweist Wacha auf die umfangreiche Website zum Thema SCO. Im Unterschied zu anderen Juristen glaubt Wacha nicht an ein jahrelanges Tauziehen der beteiligten Anwälte. "Das ist eine nicht fundierte Sache, die die (Linux-)Community nicht im geringsten beeinflusst. Üblicherweise dauern Verfahren dieser Art sehr lang, wenn es um Fragen des geistigen Eigentums geht, aber ich denke, dass die Sache in spätestens 6 Monaten vorüber und SCO wieder zurück in der Ecke ist. Die Reaktion aller Beteiligten ist einheitlich, die Beweise fehlen, die Community kann fix alle Stellen reparieren. Vor allen hat SCO die GPL selbst einmal akzeptiert. Deshalb dieser verzweifelte Versuch, die GPL komplett zu entwerten und mit dem amerikanischen Recht unvereinbar zu erklären."

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Re andre's posting of the Montavista comments (just about understandable through the fish) - the 6 month timeframe isn't so surprising (even disregarding ESR's talk of another counter-offensive) because while the IBM/SCO/RedHat cases could take years to conclude, there has to be an upper limit on the media interest SCO can generate. Once you've claimed that the kernel has "millions of lines" of "stolen code" and that the GPL is invalid, there's little extra room for sensationalism. Already the overall tone of media coverage is changing (if not the general level of accuracy ;) as the evidence against SCO's allegations mounts and their own responses become weaker and vaguer. So the SCO issue could easily fade as a live issue in people's minds sooner than 6 months, unless SCO actually go ahead with sueing an end user for non-payment of their invoice - a no-win situation for SCO, who either get laughed out of court or are forced to reveal all this amazing evidence they can't show us right now...

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is a review of the excellent SCO Halloween Document

It gives a very good historical overview of this entire SCO/Linux debacle.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

1) sco uses the dmca to shut down kernel.org and other sites that distribute linux.

2) gpl software is found in unixware or openserver. the author uses the dmca against sco. how can this be done without illegally looking at sco's code?

3) sco execs have publically stated they think the gpl is invalid. so authors of gpl applications use the dmca against sco. can the dmca be used against *potential* copyright violators?

4) a linux developer goes after sco for violating the conditions of gpl wrt linux. ibm has already stated sco violated the gpl wrt their copyright (or is it the fsf's copyright now?). can they (ibm or the fsf) use the dmca to block sco's linux distribution?

would scenario 1 force sco to show their evidence earlier?

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

I don't think scenario (1) can be used to force SCO to show their hands. IANAL, but I seem to recall reading about someone who
was served DMCA cease-and-desist papers on their website, and they were simply accused by the originator of the complaint;
the assumption here seemed to be "guilty until proven innocent" (which the site owner was, if I remember correctly). This was the
main complain in the story I read, namely that the DMCA seemed not to require proof of guilt before it can be used to shut a Web
site down. I hope I'm remembering this inaccurately; if not, then if SCO wanted to use DMCA to shut down kernel.org, I'm not sure
there would be anything to stop them.

Scenario (2) has been alluded to in that some posted stories have claimed that an ex-SCO employee (or perhaps a current
employee, my memory gets fuzzier as I get older) claims that GPL software has in fact been used in SCO's Unix products. I know
of no way to substantiate such a claim, however, without careful examination of SCO's source code. Such examination would
require that the code being examined were reliably timestamped (perhaps via CVS or some other code management system),
so that it could be determined when such code actually existed in both products (Unix and Linux). I don't see this as being very
likely, at least not in the near future.

As for scenario (3), if GPL is declared invalid, then there would be no potential copyright violation... the copyright violation
would be actual. SCO has distributed (and continues to distribute) several pieces of GPL'd software from their Web site, both
the Linux kernel which they claim violates their IP and many pieces of associated GNU code which they don't. If they do not accept
the GPL, then they have no license to distribute those GNU programs, and therefore are guilty of distributing software they have no
copyright to. This relates directly to scenario (4). By the way, if I understand correctly, while IBM has supposedly assigned their
copyright for the S/390 port of Linux to the FSF, the Linux kernel as a combined publication is copyright Linus Torvalds, while the
individual file authors retain their copyrights on their respective contributions. Again, if I'm misremembering something, I hope someone
will jump in and correct me, for the record.

[ Reply to This | # ]

(Note that SCO have not sent *any* cease and desist orders to kernel.org or any Linux distributor. Strange, no?)

X could of course contest Y's copyright, in which case Y would have to sue X. In the course of that suit Y would have to prove his copyright, which necessarily would require Y's material (in SCO's case, the code) to be shown. In particular, to take down the whole of X's site as an outcome of that case, Y would have to show that the copyright violation could not be addressed by removing the offending pieces only, which is next to impossible.

It might be possible to have X's site closed temporarily via injunction while the case was being tried, but Y would have to produce some good prima facie evidence of widespread infringement to get that (SCO's actions in Germany would indicate they don't have that sort of evidence) and also show that the continuing presence of X's site was damaging (rather hard in SCO's case while they still offer the kernel source for download themselves.) Moreover, if X was indicating a wish to co-operate in removing the offending material a court would not look kindly on Y insisting the whole site came down.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Many news sites carried the story that Eric Raymond had spoken to agroup responsible for a Distributed Denial of Service attack on the www.sco.com site and that they agreed to stop. However it appears that this may have been a hoax, or they subsequently changed their minds, or another person decided to continue the attack, or that the timeout on the attack has not yet been reached."

"Akamai would be more dependable at warding off Distributed Denial of Service attacks than favours from Eric Raymond, but concievably SCO may have difficulty swallowing its pride and buying a service that uses tens of thousands of Linux servers, for which Akamai presumably has not purchased a SCO licence."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Having said this, and not being a lawyer, I don't see any reason to run out and buy a license just yet. Let SCO prove their case more before doing anything like that.

One more thing here, I believe that the license is invalid because it is an unreasonable license. United Linux for a workstation is still going for about $60. We use Linux here for embedded purposes. So we would have to pay $32 per board. Sounds reasonable? NOT! Our boards cost $30-32 to make. This would DOUBLE the cost of our hardware. OUCH. Plus, how do we track the licenses we need to purchase? What do we get for this? Software? Support? Just a right not to be sued? This is BLACKMAIL!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oh, that would be absolutely PERFECT!!! ! Yes, the ISP, if in the USA, would have to promptly disable access to the disputed files. However, all the site has to do is file the proper counterclaim with the ISP, who must restore access. The ISP also must notify the claimant that their claim has been contested and the claimant has a very short time (10 days AFAIK) to file a proper copyright infringement lawsuit in the proper fedreal court (closest to the defendant, not plaintiff). So it would be in court, quickly, with SCO having to step through the paces of a real copyright infringement case, which above all, requires the plaintiff to show exactly what is infringed upon. And that is what SCO is tapdancing around doing, with increasing desperation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Moreover, even if SCO's code is in the kernel without their permission, they cannot legitimise your use of it by selling you a licence, for reasons explored and explained previously on Groklaw; and if there were dribs and drabs of sysV code improperly in Linux, the only possible outcome of a court case would be their removal and a possible liability on those who redistributed it, not on end users.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft: IM Party's Over

Notice the October 15 date!

Coincidence? I have a hard time believing it is. Something seriously rotten is going on here. SCO = Microsoft shill? More than likely.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The point being SCO distributed, and more importantly continues
to distribute, Linux under GPL. If there is SCO code in there now,
it's arguable (and IBM, Red Hat, FSF do argue), they themselves have put
it up under GPL. Yes you can argue that they didn't know before - but
they definitely know now, and have known at least since March,
and probably much longer.

SCO seem to think distributing Linux containing the alleged code is
a violation of copyright, because the SCO code isn't properly GPLed,
however the fact that they themselves continue to distribute the code,
using a GPL license when they distribute it, seems to undermine that
claim.

[ Reply to This | # ]

It looks to me that now MS has a large installed base, they want to shut other vendors out of it. Standard business tactics, and IANAL probably not even legally questionable - unless they leverage their Windows monopoly some how (or there's some prior contract they're breaking).

The same thing happens all the time (has happened) with other software, other software developers, even other IM software.

[ Reply to This | # ]

It looks to me that now MS has a large installed base, they want to shut other vendors out of it. Standard business tactics, and IANAL probably not even legally questionable - unless they leverage their Windows monopoly some how (or there's some prior contract they're breaking).

The same thing happens all the time (has happened) with other software, other software developers, even other IM software.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Recall that SCO's extortion license doubles on or after October 15th.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Surely no coincidence!

[ Reply to This | # ]

brenda: "i am just a person that discovered and has struggled to learn linux so that i could have a more enjoyable experience with my computer without reformat C". I came to a point where i thought exactly the same. Since then I only boot up WinXP if I really have to. Linux _is_ just more stable and reliable then Windows. Nothing can change this fact (okey, MS could ;)). And for my Desktop became stability the most important thing, after reinstalling Windows about twice a month..

[ Reply to This | # ]

brenda: "i am just a person that discovered and has struggled to learn linux so that i could have a more enjoyable experience with my computer without reformat C". I came to a point where i thought exactly the same. Since then I only boot up WinXP if I really have to. Linux _is_ just more stable and reliable then Windows. Nothing can change this fact (okey, MS could ;)). And for my Desktop became stability the most important thing, after reinstalling Windows about twice a month..

[ Reply to This | # ]

brenda: "i am just a person that discovered and has struggled to learn linux so that i could have a more enjoyable experience with my computer without reformat C". I came to a point where i thought exactly the same. Since then I only boot up WinXP if I really have to. Linux _is_ just more stable and reliable then Windows. Nothing can change this fact (okey, MS could ;)). And for my Desktop became stability the most important thing, after reinstalling Windows about twice a month..

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

"SCO operating systems are no longer supported due to their recent (and absurd) attacks against Linux and IBM. Bug reports relating to UnixWare will be ignored, or possibly even laughed at derisively. Note that I have no reason to believe anyone has ever used Nmap on SCO systems. Unixware and OpenServer suck."

this wont surprise me if it shows up in lots of things now

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stupid wrote:
So the SCO issue could easily fade as a live issue in people's minds sooner than 6 months, unless SCO actually go ahead with sueing an end user for non-payment of their invoice - a no-win situation for SCO, who either get laughed out of court or are forced to reveal all this amazing evidence they can't show us right now...

I think you've got to look at when the next block of shares will be sold under the stock sale plan from January. The day those hit the market (or perhaps the day before) look for another bombshell press release. Either an announcement of people buying licenses or an announcement of lawsuits. Remember, SCO only has to drag this out until the principles can unload their shares for top dollar. Just a little good news when the sales hit might be enough to support the stock price.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Take a look at the funny price spikes at 1:00 PM and 1:40 PM. Note the lack of volume at these times.

http://finance.yahoo.com/ q?s=SCOX&d=c&k=c4&t=1d

It really looks to me like SCOX is under heavy manipulation. But I'm certainly not a stock market expert.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Unfortunately, the open source community is also guilty of immature behavior. The Halloween documents are a prime example. As the TechWorld article that r.a. pointed out earlier in this thread says "This document however should put some of that confidence back [in Linux]. Although a more objective and less emotive version would do the job far better." I went back and read the Halloween paper again, trying to take a view of a neutral observer, and it does indeed come off as more than somewhat partisan and with a number of comments that tend to give an unbalanced view. I can understand why it might be discounted by a person not already sympathic to the open source case.

Similarly, the changes to nmap mentioned by Brenda to remove support for SCO operating systems make us appear to be petty and mean-minded. To an unbiased observer it might well appear that we are attempting to hurt users of SCO systems rather than SCO itself. Two wrongs do not make a right. Becuase we disagree with the actions of SCO that doesn't mean we should cut off their users. It's the start of a slippery slope - it sets a precedent for removing open source support for any company we don't like. If Red Hat or SuSe or Mandrake does something we don't like would they be next? Yes, I happily admit that I would like some way to hit back at SCO also, but not this approach.

From the articles I read last week, it appears that the Samba group have been under pressure to take similar action but decided against it, although there is a veiled threat by including the words "for now." at the end of their statement. I hope they can resist as it would only hurt us in the long run by suggesting that our support is conditional on not upsetting us, and that we might remove features if we don't like a particular company. This would not go unnoticed and would hurt the open source movement to a greater or lesser extent.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

If I was a developer and being publicly abused by SCO, while at the same time they profit for my work, and especially if I'm doing it for free, I'd feel no obligation to support SCO platforms.

The only people with obligation to support SCO's platforms are SCO.

If when updating my product, it made the code cleaner to remove any SCO specific stuff, or I decided to add/update features which depend on features not available on SCO's UNIX, why shouldn't I do it? It's up to me to update my product, whatever way I see fit.

I wouldn't make a big fuss about it - it's just routine updating.

If it hurts SCO users, they can go to SCO. After all, they are paying SCO for support (and incidentally funding SCO's PR and law suits) - not me.

[ Reply to This | # ]

ESR's personal posturing, his silly references to us as Star Wars rebels, his intemperate language, his veiled and not-so-veiled threats to SCO, his inability to understand the effect of his words, his poor sense of when to speak and when to be quiet... <sighs again>

It worries me greatly that his man considers himself the spokesman for the open source community, and worse, that many journalists see him in the same light.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Keep that in mind too: Because of the claims that the GPL is invalid that means that SCO already started attacking the very software that the programmers are now refusing to support SCO on. How could they seriously have some obligation to help SCO make a profit on the sweat of the brows of the Open Source programers that SCO is trying to screw over?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The trouble with Linux is so many terrible advocates.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

The argument between the Open Source community and SCO is political as much as anything else, insofar as it deals in conflicting values and interests. In such a struggle the most favorable posture is impassioned advocacy, thoroughly backed up by facts. Not only is there no shame associated with that posture, it would be irresponsible to embrace anything less, given the character of the opposition.

SCO's main strategy is opportunism and their chief weapon is public indifference and laziness. It's next to impossible to fight sluggishness with neutrality. The rhetoric is there to get enough of the bystanders' attention that they're willing to look at the facts.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I am not advocating spending time and energy to add and troubleshoot support for SCO. However, taking time and energy to remove support for a specific operating system is a different issue entirely.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Maintenance effort required, is a function of lines of code, complexity, and quality.

Reducing lines of code (by removing obsolete operating systems support), reduces maintenance effort, or results in better quality with the same effort.

Additionally when a project is refactored, a goal is to reduce complexity (and thereby increase stability and ease of maintance). Removing support for obsolete operating systems, is an obvious way to reduce complexity.

I can say from my experience, cross-platform development is hard. It is rarely linear with number of platforms - more effort per platform, as each one is added. So, reducing by even one or two platforms, helps the developer and everybody else.

[ Reply to This | # ]

However, there's a fine line between rhetoric that generates interest in bystanders to look at the issues, and rhetoric that appears to bystanders to go overboard and causes them to dismiss the advocated point of view immediately.

[ Reply to This | # ]

People at SCO listen to McBride because they have to. If we listen to ESR it's because we want to.

ESR has authored or contributed to some of the Linux community's most compelling arguments such as the OSI position paper, his analysis of SCO's Las Vegas code, and an argument by argument refutation of SCO's amended complaint.

That's why Darl was threatened enough by him to mention him by name when whining about how IBM is silently defeating SCO in the PR war. (The idea that IBM is behind this is Darl's whining, not my opinion - but the fact that he's complaining says a lot about the effectiveness of the Open Source response).

When I read his Obi-Wan rebel commander letter I personally thought damn. This childish letter is going to change the light in which his other writings are seen. For example he holds that the SGI atealloc code from the slide show comes from ancient Unix and Greg Lehay thinks it comes from System V. This will make ESR seem less reasonable in relation to Greg.

On the other hand, he earned his reputation and he can blow it childishly if he chooses.

I think going public saying that a Linux engineer was responsible for SCO's downtime was an extreme blunder and may have set the Linux movement back a week or two.

But it was an honest mistake and after SCO gets back up and explains how a ddos took them offline for sixty or so hours, this issue will be forgotten. In the meantime, the lies SCO has been caught telling will not be forgotten and ESR has been one of the main reasons SCO has been caught. Enough that Darl mentioned him by name. (Not that Darl's paranoid ravings are necessarily the best indication of effectiveness. He'd probably rather not even think about a certain blog by a paralegal)

So to sum up, I think ESR made some mistakes. I can forgive him even if he never admits they were mistakes. I think that he is one of the leaders of the Linux community because of his huge contributions, notably during this crisis. And the best part is, unlike Darl, if he stops being a huge net positive, he'll automatically stop being a leader.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

In recent weeks ESR has made some significant and obvious blunders. No matter that they were honest mistakes, he has caused problems that have set back the open source movement. As you say, ESR's reputation is his to uphold or squander as he wishes; he has every right to do that. However, when his lack of political accumen result in problems for the cause he is trying to advance, that is a different issue.

I would encourage ESR to continue his outstanding technical work. I would also encourage him to be much more careful in his public, non-technical communications. We cannot afford to have ESR's excellent technical contributions overshadowed by displays of anger and inappropriate rants and threats.

We didn't see IBM saying to SCO "If you don't stop going after us I guarantee you won't like what we will do next." At least, they didn't say it in public. They just countersued. We shouldn't be making threats either - they can (and often will) come back and bite you. We need open source advocates who are passionate and also have a degree of political skill. Unfortunately, most of the open source leaders are geeks (and as a proud geek myself, I don't think that's bad) but geekiness is not often not the best qualification for a press spokesman or political leader.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The attacker is one of us post also seemed to me to miss the mark but the only press coverage I've seen was of Darl thanking him for calling off the attack so I guess it hasn't done any harm.

Talk of the site outages, the first one is the attack which SCO have rather downplayed, the second one was the upgrade but no-one has mentioned the third one http://uptime.netc raft.com/perf/graph?site=www.sco.com looking at the uptime stats at netcraft http://uptime.netcr aft.com/up/graph/?host=www.sco.com we can see that they are actually using at least 2 servers as they have 2 different uptime figures and it looks as if neither of them were rebooted during these attacks which suggests that the downtime was due to a major server reconfiguration.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I say nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Threats are pointless, vague threats are counter productive, and can be construed in ways that the originator didn't intend.

The best way to fight SCO, are litigation, rebuttal, publicity, consumer action, and so on.

What about Linux geeks giving free upgrades to SCO UNIX customers, who are wanting to switch? I'm sure they'd be plenty of volunteering geeks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

For those who wish to know where I¡¦m coming from, I am a partner in a company that does small to medium size office networks. While 99% of our work revolves around M$S (and the rest is actually Novel, still not Linux ƒ¼)), I have enjoyed using/playing with Linux for what has to be going on 7 or 8 years now. I have been watching with great anticipation (and pestering software venders such as ADP, Peachtree & such for Linux ports to help the ¡§but it doesn¡¦t run our apps¡¨ complaint) for it to finish maturing, hoping to eventually use it in offices & not hear about it (if you don¡¦t know what I mean by that, spend more time with users ¡V it¡¦s amazing how a SMALL change can make them scream, let alone a real major change¡K) ¡V and it is VERY close to being there (Xandros is my current ¡§this might actually fly¡¨ choice, as it deals with a couple issues that I know I¡¦d take a lot of heat about¡K) I¡¦m also married to an Attorney who was Compaq certified prior to going off to law school (I¡¦m trying to get her to start looking at this stuff, but she¡¦s got her own work to worry about at the moment¡K), and prior to the I.T. thing I worked as a P.O. for the court, so I have some idea what happens in court rooms (I sat in one every day for two years¡K).

In regards to Calibaxs' statements: While I am not a coder (they have my utmost respect - I personally hated coding in college - if you¡¦ve never attempted coding something, all I can say is that the complexity of the act is almost impossible to describe.), we must remember (even if SCO seems to have forgotten¡K), it IS their code & they can choose to put in or remove what ever they feel the need to. What is great about Open Source is that if anyone needs to have that functionality, they can add to the code & support it themselves ¡V or write their own code from scratch ¡V or PAY someone to code it for them. They can even keep using it internally and will then not need to worry about the GPL at all, it only comes in to play if you wish to distribute¡K The initial coder DOES NOT have any ¡§requirement¡¨ to support anything (and I think you would have a hard time showing that they ever ¡§agreed¡¨ to make sure everything would continue to be supported or AVAILABLE in the future ¡V not even M$ does that). This is work they did & contributed to everyone, there is no ¡§moral¡¨ contract here (I was a philosophy major; I do know something about ethical requirements¡Kbut then again after working in the courts & being married to an attorney, the legal world def. has it¡¦s own way of viewing things¡K). If users of SCO¡¦s stuff want to continue to have access & support to things created by Open Source, then they ought to be telling SCO that without the added functionality that Open Source products provide there is substantially less value to SCO¡¦s product, and that SCO should act in recognition of this¡K

As for the ESR flack, he is, and always has been, a bit of a character. While it¡¦s true a slightly more ¡§suite¡¨ attitude might play better in the mainstream press, unless he¡¦s rambling in the witness stand it doesn¡¦t mean much. Judges are also usually pretty good about sending signals that they are getting annoyed, though I have to admit I was always amazed at how many attorneys failed to get those signals (maybe it¡¦s just that after that many hours in hearings I just sorta started to get a feel for it¡K). As he generally has his head about him, I wouldn¡¦t expect anything less then professionalism from him when it matters. As anyone who has been around I.T. knows, coders are, to a large extent, a different mind set. As this is the group he was actually speaking to don¡¦t be surprised about his choice of vocabulary.

In regards to extensions & such by the courts, I would be substantially more surprised if there where not any then that there has been one. There would likely have to be a few more requests prior to even the suggestion that they were ¡§stalling¡¨ to be entertained by the judge.

Hopefully I¡¦ll be able to get the wife to comment here & there, we shall see¡K.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Her it is fixed: Just wanted to make a few comments here,

For those who wish to know where I’m coming from, I am a partner in a company that does small to medium size office networks. While 99% of our work revolves around M$S (and the rest is actually Novel, still not Linux :)), I have enjoyed using/playing with Linux for what has to be going on 7 or 8 years now. I have been watching with great anticipation (and pestering software venders such as ADP, Peachtree & such for Linux ports to help the “but it doesn’t run our apps” complaint) for it to finish maturing, hoping to eventually use it in offices & not hear about it (if you don’t know what I mean by that, spend more time with users – it’s amazing how a SMALL change can make them scream, let alone a real major change…) – and it is VERY close to being there (Xandros is my current “this might actually fly” choice, as it deals with a couple issues that I know I’d take a lot of heat about…) I’m also married to an Attorney who was Compaq certified prior to going off to law school (I’m trying to get her to start looking at this stuff, but she’s got her own work to worry about at the moment…), and prior to the I.T. thing I worked as a P.O. for the court, so I have some idea what happens in court rooms (I sat in one every day for two years…).

In regards to Calibaxs' statements: While I am not a coder (they have my utmost respect - I personally hated coding in college - if you’ve never attempted coding something, all I can say is that the complexity of the act is almost impossible to describe.), we must remember (even if SCO seems to have forgotten…), it IS their code & they can choose to put in or remove what ever they feel the need to. What is great about Open Source is that if anyone needs to have that functionality, they can add to the code & support it themselves – or write their own code from scratch – or PAY someone to code it for them. They can even keep using it internally and will then not need to worry about the GPL at all, it only comes in to play if you wish to distribute… The initial coder DOES NOT have any “requirement” to support anything (and I think you would have a hard time showing that they ever “agreed” to make sure everything would continue to be supported or AVAILABLE in the future – not even M$ does that). This is work they did & contributed to everyone, there is no “moral” contract here (I was a philosophy major; I do know something about ethical requirements…but then again after working in the courts & being married to an attorney, the legal world def. has it’s own way of viewing things…). If users of SCO’s stuff want to continue to have access & support to things created by Open Source, then they ought to be telling SCO that without the added functionality that Open Source products provide there is substantially less value to SCO’s product, and that SCO should act in recognition of this…

As for the ESR flack, he is, and always has been, a bit of a character. While it’s true a slightly more “suite” attitude might play better in the mainstream press, unless he’s rambling in the witness stand it doesn’t mean much. Judges are also usually pretty good about sending signals that they are getting annoyed, though I have to admit I was always amazed at how many attorneys failed to get those signals (maybe it’s just that after that many hours in hearings I just sorta started to get a feel for it…). As he generally has his head about him, I wouldn’t expect anything less then professionalism from him when it matters. As anyone who has been around I.T. knows, coders are, to a large extent, a different mind set. As this is the group he was actually speaking to, don’t be surprised about his choice of vocabulary.

In regards to extensions & such by the courts, I would be substantially more surprised if there where not any then that there has been one. There would likely have to be a few more requests prior to even the suggestion that they were “stalling” to be entertained by the judge.

Hopefully I’ll be able to get the wife to comment here & there, we shall see….

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/0001102542030 00054/xslF345X02/primary_doc.xml

[ Reply to This | # ]

Glenn

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Please, 733t3 h8x0rz, or some such.

Dang, must be gettin old. Cain't fake bein' a youngin' no more...

ESR has done a good job of explaining how Torvald's model works, and is a good propaganist (evangelist) for the F/OOS movement.

Sometimes he will go over the top. Sometimes he will induldge in silly behavour, like the Star Wars analogy, and sometimes he will make statements, passionate statements, that might be construed as threats.

Will the promised phone call be made? Let's hope so.

Will the participants come to agreement? Let's hope so.

Will this agreement help them, and maybe us? Let's hope so.

The best our side can do is dispell FUD. ESR, managed to FUD from our side over the weekend.

Yes we can do it too.

(Alex, this is not personal to you, it is to the thread.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

And next time, I'll spell "733t3 h8x0rz," correctly.

NOT.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thanks for the violent agreement.

[ Reply to This | # ]

That pertains to the SCO response, however, ESR is the president of the Open Source Initiative: http://opensource.org/docs/board.php

ESR doesn't want to be the 'fuhrer' and will gladly hand over the reigns of the open source movement to someone else, should they decide to step forward: http://www.catb .org/~esr/writings/take-my-job-please.html

I think ESR was proper in revealing that a DDoS was in fact taking place and even more proper for demanding that it stop. You can blast your mouth of on a public forum and make the OSI look bad, but a DDoS makes all of SCO's opponents look like frustrated kids throwing a tantrum. I assume that ESR would like to knock SCO out in the legal system and doesn't relish the fact that he is putting a lot of effort into fighting SCO, only for some morons to arm SCO with more PR and legal opportunity. ESR is the only one I know of that not only has SYSV source, but has published a diff of the publicly questioned code. IMO, I say cut the guy some slack, he's done a hell of a job for the open source movement and admittedly is getting burned out.

[ Reply to This | # ]

ESR got it the wrong way round, plus he walked into an obvious PR trap.

DDoS is wrong, everybody knows that. So no kudos to ESR for saying so.

Negative PR points for using such ambiguous threats, that he needed to explicitly say DDoS=bad, in order to distance himself from any DDoS.

Plenty more negative points for turning it into a media frenzy blamed on open source guys - associating himself/OSS with some hacker (repeated use of "we" instead of "that idiot") - especially when there appears to be some doubt about whether it was even a DDoS.

Take my job? Oh please! A hymn of praise to ESR by ESR. After all, to take his job, you supposed to have all these amazing attributes, that presumably the current holder has.

But, that said, I'll forgive ESR everything - if he actually gets something useful done about SCO.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sorry, I should have been more explicit here, for the record I meant to say that, IIRC, the site owner was in fact innocent.

[ Reply to This | # ]

By all means. But first, threaten them that you are going to nuke them if they don't mend their ways. Hopefully, they will be scared off and you may not need to actually carry out the threat. Now, ESR's threats are vague, but he says he needs that element of surprise.

[ Reply to This | # ]

That's why I was very upset with ESR for even voicing a threat. This is how we do it: We move in silently. We kill. We leave a message that they definitely don't want us to be back looking for them. We vanish into thin air. Our spokespeople smile, and speak oh-so-softly and reasonably all the while. Speak like an angel from heaven, strike like a demon from hell, vanish into thin air like a snowflake in the sun!

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's also a way of keeping your hands clean - "What, me and my code open to that nasty virus? I thought you were bum chums, bosom buddies, with that other crowd. They don't talk with me, nor I with them. If you're with them, go see them." By so doing, you keep your reputation clean from their bad habits and bad practices.

And reputation is the one thing that the FOSS community take seriously.

It will be exquisite poetic revenge for SCO to collapse in a heap from unexpected exertion when it is expected to maintain its own - and all the FOSS - without a ginormous army of developers. SCO delenda est!

[ Reply to This | # ]