|
Dear Darl, Look for a Letter Soon |
|
Friday, September 12 2003 @ 05:33 PM EDT
|
Our community letter in answer to Darl's Open Letter to the Open Source Community is coming along, and so is the press list. We expect to have it done by Monday, if all continues to progress as it has been, so if anyone else has anything they'd like to say, now is the time. I have heard from several journalists already, expressing interest. I have tons of email too from readers, just full of great ideas and information. Here is some more space for further ideas, urls, press contacts, whatever you wish to add to the project. Say, this is fun, huh?
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 02:39 PM EDT |
The comments filled up again, so I got some email and here are two that gave
permission to post on their behalf:
Hello again,
Here's more good stuff. I spent last night and this morning researching SCO's
early relationship with Linux. Some of this material has been covered already,
but I think most of it is fresh new stuff. What's most interesting about this
collection of facts, to my eye, is that it completely destroys any argument that
Old SCO was in any way virginal where Linux was concerned. By the time they were
gobbled by Caldera, SCO owned part of LinuxMall, Caldera, and TurboLinux. They
had open-sourced one of their products, created Linux services for TurboLinux,
including clustering products, and they'd at least started the process of
building their own distribution. They hadn't just seen the code, they'd gotten
in bed with it.
Anyway, here it is. Feel free to put any/all of this up on Groklaw:
SCO's relationship with Linux did not begin in a friendly manner. While being
interviewed by Computerworld in April of 1999 SCO CEO Doug Michels used words
like "punk young kids who've taken and engineered pieces around the Unix
[kernel]" to describe Linux programmers. Linux companies, he said, are "...not
in control of their road map. They ship whatever happens to be current in the
Linux community."
http:/
/www.computerworld.com/news/1999/story/0,11280,35431,00.html
Those who wonder whether SCO UNIX might contain stolen Linux code should note
his answer to the last question:
Q: But you see Linux providing modules for SCO?
A: As far as I'm concerned, it's free R&D. A lot of developers who have always
preferred Unix are developing on Linux. The last thing in the world I want is
some cool app and have my customer go, "Oh, God, if I only had Linux, I could
get that app."
Less dramatically, Linux journal carried this story about the SCO's conflicts
involving Linux:
http://www.linuxjournal.
com/article.php?sid=4922
Another story of Michels blasting Linux can be found here. (This is a forward
from newswire.com.au, a site which apparently is no longer in business.)
http://www
.linux.org.ve/archivo/l-linux-1999-April/002512.html
The denizens of SlashDot? were predictably grumpy:
http://slashdot.org/ar
ticles/99/04/21/118210.shtml
but some of the stories they told made it clear that even in 1999 SCO was
already considered a second class UNIX. One anonymous poster > wrote:
" SCO can no longer justify their existence. Their overpriced underfeatured OS
simply cannot compete with Linux.
Every time I've worked with SCO in the past it's made my flesh crawl. The first
time was in the late 80's on a 286 running SCO Xenix. The base OS was over $1000
and if I wanted any of the other amenities that I thought should come stock with
the UNIX OS (C Compiler, nroff/troff, etc) you had to add more money. MUCH more
money. In addition their support line could never tell us why the OS would
suddenly slow to a crawl after 2 or 3 days of running. If Linux had existed back
then, my company's choice would have been a hell of a lot easier.
In my last job I was working with SCO again and I welcomed the chance to see if
they'd improved at all. Well they haven't. Their pricing plan is still one of
the most confusing I've ever seen, they charge by the user if I recall
correctly, and in general the OS is just plain irritating to deal with. I'm
working with several different flavors of UNIX right now and SCO is the only one
that feels like a toy when I use it.
SCO should do the industry a favor and disband, pausing only to bulk-format all
their drives so that none of the evil source code can inadvertently escape into
the world. Their marketing people and their tech support people should be sent
to camps to be retrained for professions more suited to their skills and their
buildings should be torn down and burned.
I'm betting SCO is the first casuality of the Open Source movement."
Another Slashdot reader, Jan Moren, wrote, "I would'nt be too suprised if SCO
tried attacking the Linux distributors legally, claiming that they have unfair
advantage in the marketplace. Don't think they could win such a suit, but it
would probably slow the adoption of Linux during the legal proceedings."
Wow. Jan, you rock.
However, after some grovelling on Doug Michel's part, the relationship soon
turned smooth, with SCO setting up partnerships with, and buying stakes in,
TurboLinux? and LinuxMall?.
The letter in which Michels "clarifies" his feelings toward Linux is very
interesting. You can find it here.
http://linuxtoday.
com/infrastructure/1999051000210NWCY
Note particularly the paragraph which reads:
"I also believe in the principle that great programmers should
"steal" great code whenever possible, so long as they do not violate any
laws or license agreements. In hindsight, it's clear that "steal" was a
poor and confusing choice of words on my part. I was perhaps being too
flippant by trying to point out that one can't really steal that which
is freely offered."
"freely offered," huh. Is Michels talking about GPLed code, and if so, what does
he intend to do with that code? This may relate to an incident in which Michels
is supposed to have spoken badly or Linux programmers, but I haven't tracked it
down yet, so it may or may not relate to possible code theft. - Alex
However, in June of 1999, SCO released its SAR (System Activity Reporter) to the
open source community, and by Fall of 1999, Linux was clearly part of SCO's
strategy. For example, in October of 1999, LWN reported that SCO "...entered
into strategic agreement with TurboLinux? to develop services for TurboLinux?'s
TurboCluster? Server and provide Linux Professional Services for TurboLinux?
customers. Old SCO also made a sizable investment in TurboLinux?, Caldera and
LinuxMall?." You'll find that story here:
http://lwn.net/Comments/36053/
Here are some more URLs on SCO's purchase of a stake in LinuxMall?. Look for the
headline which reads, "SCO has taken an equity stake in the Linux Mall." It's
near the middle of the page.
http://lwn.net/1999/1014/
Here's SCO's press release on their investment in and strategic partnership with
LinuxMall?:
http://lwn.net/1999/1014/a/
sco-linuxmall.html
ECommerce Times released a story discussing discussing SCO's partnership with
TurboLinux?.
http://www.ecommerceti
mes.com/perl/story/1780.html
SCO Partners With TurboLinux?
"In another recent Linux-related move, SCO and TurboLinux? jointly announced the
availability of different levels of service offerings for the TurboLinux?
TurboCluster? Server 4.0 product.
The packages, "TurboCluster? Audit" and "TurboCluster? Start-up," are designed,
according to a joint statement, to assist corporate users and resellers in the
processes of configuration, deployment, installation and planning. Additionally,
TurboLinux? customers will have access to the Linux Professional Consulting
Services available through SCO.
"We are ready to assist TurboLinux?'s customers with their enterprise
deployments of the new TurboCluster? Server offering," commented David Taylor,
vice president of SCO's Professional Services organization. "With more than 20
years experience providing services for Intel-based UNIX systems, SCO
understands the customer requirements for enterprise-computing.""
Ultimately, going to the web pages below, we find out that SCO knows about IBM
and AIX and Linux compatibility because they worked on it together along with
Cygnus Solutions, (Cynus is a RedHat? subsidiary which specializes in
implementing the gcc compiler on new chipsets) EPC, Geodesic, Merant, Parasoft
and Roguewave.
http://web.archive.org/web/20011006104536/http://www.sco.com/monterey/aix
5l.htm
Note that the URL above links to an archive of SCO's website. The story is no
longer available on SCO's wesite.
Another interesting SCO story involving Linux and Project Monterey begins:
"Linux fever is infecting even the staunchest Unix advocates, as evidenced this
week at SCO Forum in Santa Cruz, California."
"While the partners involved in the Monterey Project -- the initiative between
SCO, IBM, Intel, Sequent Computer and Compaq Computer to create a high-volume
unified UNIX -- were upbeat on Monterey's prospects, they still had Linux on the
brain."
Here's the URL:
http://news.zd
net.co.uk/hardware/0,39020351,2073219,00.htm
And here are some more URLS that talk about Linux services being implemented in
Project Monterey.
www.tdagroup.com/pdfs/ebus.pdf
http://www-5.ibm.co
m/se/news/1999/12/p9912081821.html
http://archive.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/00/08/10/000810hnibmaix.xml
http://home.clara.net/blenny/AIX5
L.html
Finally, after taking a 6.9 million restructuring charge in the spring of 2000,
and after announcing a loss of "between 50 cents and 55 cents per share, not the
13 cent loss analysts had expected," SCO decided to begin distributing
Linux.
According to an article published by Forbes.com on July 12th of 2000,
"Sources say it's (SCO) working out an arrangement with France's MandrakeSoft?
to distribute its Linux-Mandrake operating system. SCO will use Linux-Mandrake
as the base OS and add some features like clustering, which is a complex way to
improve the performance and expansion of servers. MandrakeSoft? also has offices
in Altadena, Calif.
SCO Chief Executive Doug Michels wouldn't comment specifically on a deal with
MandrakeSoft?, but he says the company will become a Linux distributor."
http://www.forbes.com/2000/07/1
2/mu3.html
Another article also discusses a SCO Linux, though it doesn't mentioin
MandrakeSoft? by name.
htt
p://archive.infoworld.com/articles/pi/xml/00/03/22/000322pisco.xml
Here's another article on SCO's woes in spring of 2000:
htt
p://archive.infoworld.com/articles/pi/xml/00/03/22/000322pisco.xml
Alex Roston
___________
Then from annon:
AND what Michael Dell thinks about paying SCO for LINUX use...
http://www.linux.org/news/
2003/09/10/0003.html
[When asked whether the SCO Group's move to secure license fees for the use of
Unix in Linux was affecting Dell's Linux plans, Michael Dell replied, "Not at
all."
And his answer to the question "Are you paying license fees"? Michael simply
replied "Nope."
--------------------------
pj, I think that I get it now!
McBride is just following the Caldera/SCO company line that Ransom Love defined
while Love was trying to figure out how to monetize the value that Caldera (SCO)
added to LINUX (and use all Linux applications on their own UNIX too)! Ransom
Love and McBride and company were all along looking to use the UnitedLINUX
developer's efforts to do LINUX apps on their enterprise UNIX. (I hope that
everyone does not start yelling at me for being so dense all this while).
I think that McBride was originally hired to head a SCO (and to head just the
marketing folks) that was about to move their Linux on UNIX product to the
enterprise customers that they had targeted (all existing UNIX users - 1500
letters?)! When McBride heard IBM say they were going to help scale LINUX to
enterprise levels then their house of cards suddenly blew away! Because SCO had
mostly marketing folks to take SCO UNIX product line to 64bit as the CONTRACT
with IBM, that SCO had, was part of a plan to con IBM into giving them what they
needed to do a 64bit(intel) UNIX = ouch! IBM stating, in public (at as part of
a major keynote speech), that IBM wanted an enterprise ready LINUX (and at the
same time leaving UNIX behind - but not the AIX UNIX customers) was a direct
assault on Caldera/SCO's years of planning! Years of Caldera/SCO convincing
other LINUX groups to standardize LINUX on the UnitedLINUX platform, years of
spending money for UNIX assets (some of these UNIX as
sets being given away by Caldera/SCO were part of the original plan, as they
also planned that the certain amounts of UNIX code that they freed would be too
tempting to the LINUX/UnitedLinux developers not to use it... AND these
developers using any of this old code would assist with the "forward and
backward" compatibility future of their OpenUNIX-ware and OpenLinux enterprise
goal), and the years of coding UNIX or getting others to help them upgrade the
UNIX code (by maybe even borrowing LINUX GPL code to make UNIX able to run LINUX
- remember the e-mail by former SCO employee and kernel developer, Christoph
Helwig, where he pointing to any stealing that happened being associated with
the possibility that LINUX code was going into SCO UNIXware) so that it would
run free UnitedLinux compatible apps on enterprise level hardware (so that
Caldera/SCO could reap enterprise level profits by owning a UNIX/LINUX hybrid
that everyone else (UnitedLinux folks) would code for and SCO
would just have to hire a marketing staff - ALL WENT POOF! All gone, Bye-bye,
all blown away by IBM's different vision of UNIX! I wonder was what in that IBM
contact that SCO saw as something that they could use to move their UNIX into
the 64bit world (the only missing and final part to their plan)? This scheme is
the #1 SCO reason as to why Caldera took on the UNIX assets!
Could it be that Canopy, Caldera/SCO's board of directors, and both Love and
McBride have been singing the same song for oh-so long... that they now, due to
efforts by IBM and others to make LINUX run on the mainframes, etc... that, they
then were forced into having only one option left - sue IBM to try to get them
to finish the 64bit part they needed for UNIXware, a hail mary law suit, and
then a go for broke claim to own all of UNIX-to include LINUX as a defined UNIX
and own it too? Believe it or not... at one point in time, there was a method
to their conspiracy based madness!
The last quote found below is where Ransom Love drives home an interesting
unFORK of an idea - to take the best of LINUX and move it to their very own UNIX
(that would run Linux) cocktail. Hmmmm, - not really a FORK but, still a
FORKING...! And it just may be that all this has got Microsoft now thinking of
how to do the something creative with their new SCO UNIX rights! Hmmm, and just
what is the wording of SCO's Microsoft Unix contract?
http://zdnet.com.com
/2100-11-530155.html?legacy=zdnn
[Now, Love said he is deadly serious in developing Linux to become the main
business-platform. "From the technical view this is a major challenge. I hold a
lot respect for all these Linux companies and their work. They are no parasites,
either. They put millions into the development, just like us. Our job is now
mainly marketing. It's sad, because the marketing guys are always seen as the
bad guys. We never get the credit. But if we did not do that, none of the Linux
companies on the market could survive. We pay 650 people to work for and on
Linux, just as Suse or Red Hat do with their 600 employees each. I would call
that a large contribution to the open source movement."]
http://news.com.com
/2100-1001-251959.html?legacy=cnet
[The combination of Caldera Systems' Linux products and SCO's Unix software puts
Love in the position--unusual for a Linux executive--of discussing the
weaknesses of Linux on high-end systems with multiple CPUs. Caldera has a
financial stake in this argument; the company is modifying SCO software so it
can run Linux software unchanged.
Caldera believes UnixWare is better-suited to these high-end environments.
McCrab said that after years of tuning, Unixware 7 shows more than double the
performance of Linux running Linux software on high-end systems.
The ability to run Linux software on SCO Unix will be ready in test form this
March, with the final product available before midyear, McCrab said.]
http://www.linuxjournal.
com/article.php?sid=5406
[A dangerous course indeed, in this market. Caldera can't afford to keep
UnixWare alive as a proprietary product if the mainstream Linux kernel blows
past it in performance and features. "Our model is to innovate, give back, and
innovate again," Ransom says. So, if current industry trends are any guide,
Caldera will be making a lot more of UnixWare a lot more open than they're
expecting.]
http://www.computerworld.com/industrytopics/transportation/story/0
,10801,48264,00.html
[Orem, Utah-based Caldera said it would create an "open Internet platform,"
scaling from thin clients to the data center. On the high end, it will offer
UnixWare and an upcoming 64-bit Unix that will result from Project Monterey, a
joint effort by IBM and SCO. Both will run Linux binaries, but unlike Linux,
their source code can't be freely redistributed.
In a conference call with analysts, Caldera CEO Ransom Love said developers
would get access to all Caldera source code, but that Caldera would hold on to
ownership of parts of the code. "Ownership [of code] is not a bad thing, it's
actually a good thing," said Love. "It protects [code] quality."]
http://news.com.com/2008-1082-9
29697.html
[So UnitedLinux will remain an open-source project?
Absolutely. The only difference is that the UnitedLinux binaries will not be
freely distributed. People will be able to download the source code and compile
their own binaries, but they will not be able to use the UnitedLinux brand.]
http://news.zd
net.co.uk/business/0,39020645,2111167,00.htm
[What does all this mean for the operating systems you acquired from SCO, namely
OpenLinux and OpenServer?
We are not stopping development of our Unix operating systems, and have upgrades
to OpenServer and OpenUnix coming. OpenUnix will run UnitedLinux applications by
the end of the year, and that that time OpenLinux 4.0 (Caldera's Linux
distribution) will ship with the UnitedLinux kernel. The message to developers
is to develop Linux applications--that is, develop UnitedLinux applications so
they can deploy to either OpenUnix or OpenLinux or any of the other UnitedLinux
distributions out there.
So OpenUnix will continue in parallel to OpenLinux?
Yes. Open Unix could well keep going in parallel to OpenLinux. We are not moving
Open Unix onto Intel's 64-bit platform, but IA32 will be around for a long time
yet.]
http://www
.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0305.0/0237.html
Former SCO employee Christoph Hellwig quote RE: Did the SCO Group plant UnixWare
source in the Linux kernel?:
"It might be more interesting to look for stolen Linux code in Unixware,
I'd suggest with the support for a very well known Linux fileystem in
the Linux compat addon product for UnixWare.. "
http://zdnet.com.com
/2100-11-521486.html?legacy=zdnn
[Love added that any kind of move on SCO's part to "unify Unix and Linux" would
be "very positive."] pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 02:58 PM EDT |
My thoughts on the letter:
The DOS attacks need to be addressed. If there is proof that they did not
occur, state it. Point out that no one announces a DOS attack before it occurs,
because warning makes it easier to defend against. Also question how odd the
Raymond announcement was- don't go out and say he was set up, let the reader
figure it out. The DOS attacks were really used by Darl- disprove them and the
boy has egg on his face.
The Linuxtag suit. How SCO's euro-CEO will have to pay or go to jail. Also,
point out the maximum penalties- they are large and it sounds good.
The Redhat suit, and what it may do.
Point out Darl's lies in regards to the Computerwire article, and Computerwire's
rebuttal.
The fact that SCO has threatened commercial users of Linux, but will not invoice
them. And that they say they will take a "cc order," but won't tell you what
that order is for.
Darl's code at the slideshow.
And finally, how all of this appears to be a setup- selective info. presented to
journalists and analysts like DiDiot, manipulation of the media etc. Perhaps
designed to scare IBM into a fast settlement. Bravado and bluster, no
substance.
I would recommend going deeply into the questions regarding GPL vs. copyright,
because this will put readers asleep. Ditto with long rebuttals of each one of
Darl's points filled with legalese- not even lawyers like to read legalese. Far
more effective to point out, like Linus did, that there should be no negotiation
with Darl. Make it clear Darl is a thief, and highly unethical. Using his own
statements against him can be highly effective.
If we can show that Darl lied about several things, has threatened commercial
users on his website but won't send out invoices, and let the reader believe he
is a fast talker with the goal of using the legal system to earn money, we have
gone far in destroying the SCO FUD. The statements should be simple enough that
someone as unfamiliar with the situation can follow and understand. And, very
importantly, the tone of the letter should be calm and rational. Just like
Darl's letter- only we will be telling the truth. Anger doesn't play well,
except on Jerry Springer and Geraldo.
Make Darl McBride, CEO of SCO, become Darl McBride, liar, scoundrel, and con man
in the mind of the reader. By telling the truth. wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 02:59 PM EDT |
I would recommend going deeply into the questions regarding GPL vs. copyright,
because this will put readers asleep. Ditto with long rebuttals of each one of
Darl's points filled with legalese- not even lawyers like to read legalese
Should be-
I would recommend NOT going deeply into the questions regarding GPL vs.
copyright, because this will put readers asleep. Ditto with long rebuttals of
each one of Darl's points filled with legalese- not even lawyers like to read
legalese
Sorry. wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 03:12 PM EDT |
One final thought- this is agitprop, not a legal brief. Darl has been
propagandizing for months, and he calls his propaganda "press releases." This
is the answer to Darl's propaganda. Its rebuttal. And it wouldn't hurt to
entertain the audience a bit with "stupid Darl" quotes. Many can be found at
the "We Love the SCO Information Minister" website. Readers like to see that
the bad guy is a buffoon, too. wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 03:20 PM EDT |
Hmm, the day is almost over, how about some fun:
The right punishment for Darl McBride:
http://www.rm-r.net/~getc
h/punishments/curious/
The chapter about Branks and gags seems to be perfect... ;-) Jadeclaw[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 03:31 PM EDT |
wild bill - demonstrating that there PROBABLY wasn't a DoS (and if ther was it
wasn't responsible for most of the downtime) is unfortunately a long technical
argument. It also requires copies of the netcraft performance graphs. I don't
think it is therefore appropriate in the letter but I have asked netcraft if
they will allow republishing of their graphs (no response yet) so that we can
put a separate web page together about it.
The one thing that is more accessible is the issue of the person who approached
ESR. If SCO had really reported the incident to the FBI as they claimed then
they would have said that ESR had been approached by someone claiming to know
the attacker and ESR would have had a request to turn over any info he had. If
the latter had happened it would have been in the Perens and ESR letter, if the
attack had really happened SCO wouldn't have bluffed about reporting it
therefore the most likely option is that the attack didn't happen. Adam
Baker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 03:41 PM EDT |
wild bill - SCO Group didn't get the DR-DOS money - Canopy split Caldera in 2,
one went after MS and the other was the Linux business so canopy got the
money.
quatermass - damages went from $1 billion to $3 billion as SCO started claiming
triple damages for wilful infringment once they had notified IBM and IBM didn't
magically make SCO profitable. Adam Baker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 04:03 PM EDT |
This doesn't have to do directly with our Dear Darl, but it seems like a good
place to mention it. I haven't seen this article posted anywhere, yet (although there's an awful lot of
comments to search through!). It's a ComputerWorld opinion piece by Jonathan
Schwartz, Exec. VP of Sun Microsystems, in which he calmly states that
"Open-source is irrelevant" in that it doesn't help in the push for open
standards (hogwash, by the way), also implying that if open source doesn't have
that benefit, then it's pretty useless otherwise. This is the same guy that we
saw announcing Sun's proposed "indemnification" plan the other day.
A few interesting quotes from the article:
"Now a variety of technology companies are delivering proprietary
technology into the world, and they're creating dependencies while hiding under
a shroud called 'open-source.' Don't be fooled, they're shirking the very open
standards that guarantee interoperability. Why? Because they don't like
interoperability—they like dependency."
Huh!? No open source software that I use fits this description. Open source
people tend to love interoperability, and will go to great lengths to
hack it into their projects. Even KDE and GNOME have done work together to
promote interoperability, for crying out loud.
"To me, open-source is irrelevant to the discussion. And as the
industry's single largest contributor to the open-source movement, I don't say
that lightly."
O-kay. And..
"Ignore the fact that StarOffice is open-source. It's an
irrelevance."
Does it sound like someone's trying to divert attention elsewhere? pik[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 04:37 PM EDT |
Adam Baker wrote:
"wild bill - SCO Group didn't get the DR-DOS money - Canopy split Caldera in 2,
one went after MS and the other was the Linux business so canopy got the
money."
I thought the way that went was that Caldera bought DR-DOS from Novell, sued M$
and won about 155 million, with 25% going back to Novell because they owned a
stake in Caldera. Days later, Caldera filed their IPO. And near the same time,
the received investment capital from Sun Microsystems, SCO, Citrix, Novell, Egan
Managed Capital, and Chicago Venture Partners. Caldera then went on to become
"The SCO Group." Caldera was always in the Linux business- this is the same
Caldera that sued MS, if I am not mistaken. wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 04:39 PM EDT |
Adam Baker wrote-
"The one thing that is more accessible is the issue of the person who approached
ESR. If SCO had really reported the incident to the FBI as they claimed then
they would have said that ESR had been approached by someone claiming to know
the attacker and ESR would have had a request to turn over any info he had. If
the latter had happened it would have been in the Perens and ESR letter, if the
attack had really happened SCO wouldn't have bluffed about reporting it
therefore the most likely option is that the attack didn't happen. "
Is there any way to get this into the letter without getting too technical? Any
way to determine whether or not a DOS attack was reported to any of the
appropriate authorities? If it did not happen, my guess is that it was never
reported. Darl isn't stupid enough to file a false report. wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 04:56 PM EDT |
I really think ESR would have said if the feds had asked him who contacted him.
Someone could check with him to be certain. If the matter had been reported then
ESR would have to have been approached unless the FBI had decided SCOs evidence
was so poor it was useless (and surely no-one could think that of evidence from
SCO:-) Adam Baker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 04:58 PM EDT |
Some good posts at LWN.net on a proactive approach to educate the media about
SCO.
http://lwn.net/Articles/48888/ ProgrammerMan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 05:09 PM EDT |
Couldn't the letter just raise questions about the alleged DOS, without actually
proving that it didn't happen?
For example, it could say that its uptime/downtime patterns seemed to match
business hours perfectly, and that several people were told by SCO employees
that the site was down for maintenance. Those facts are simple to understand
and easily supported.
Then, mention that no one (including ESR) has ever claimed to know the identity
of the attacker, and that SCO has provided no evidence that they have reported
it to the authorities.
Conclude that there isn't enough evidence yet to determine whether there were
any attacks, or, if there were, whether they were responsible for all of SCO's
site's recent downtime. State that, based on SCO's poor record in telling the
truth so far, we would like to see more evidence, but that, in any case, such
tactics find very little support in the open source community at large. Dave[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 05:26 PM EDT |
How about a very short main response that highlights 2 of the best points, and
links/points to a lengthy, detailed dissection of of the 'open letter'
The short letter might be something along the lines of (definitely not to be
repeated verbatim)
"the purpose of 'open letters' is generally to present new, useful information
and build understandings. Your letter contains no new information, a great
many accusations, and what would appear to be deliberate lies. Your 'open
letter' is analyzed at great length <here>.
We question your sincerity because the letter continues SCO's aggressive,
belligerent and unproven accusations and it proposes no resolution to the key
issue of this whole debate.
The key issue of the debate SCO's cynical contempt of IP law, and contempt for
genuine copyright holders.
Mr. McBride, your contempt of IP law and of the true copyright holders of Linux
is proven by your refusal to abide by IP law by showing proof of the alleged
violations. Your contempt is proved by your refusal to allow the alleged
violations to be fixed. That is how IP law was written, that is how copyright
law is applied by all who respect it.
Since you refuse to condunct yourself according to the law one can only conclude
that you are contemptuous of it.
" Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 05:29 PM EDT |
Be ready for this
"we attempted to give the open source community an olive branch and they refused
it"
in a press release on Monday to accompany the RH suit response. Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 05:41 PM EDT |
Dave: Couldn't the letter just raise questions about the alleged DOS, without
actually proving that it didn't happen?
Wouldn't that be fighting FUD with FUD? Much as I like to stick to the facts,
sometimes the smellier skunk wins! :) Frank[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 05:45 PM EDT |
Darl can say hi to Hale & Dorr, LLP on Monday too, look them up.
Prehaps that has something to do with the "olive branch" (or was it skunk spray
into the headlights of the oncoming Mack truck?) Dan O'Mara[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 05:59 PM EDT |
SCO wants u to concentrate on the attack. They read RMS letter ... it's ONE OF
US ... and Darl was happy and knew he could use that. May be there was a little
attack, but now Darl see a real good FUD opportunity. So he use that opportunity
to change some stuff on the website... too shut down the website for no reason
whatsoever once in a while. He know that Raymond made a mistake and that the
community would react and he know that the facts (downtime after the first real
attack) look not right. He know that the community will say they don't think
there was an attack and then, then he comes with some FBI guy (or some kind of
proof) that there really was an attack and how the community ignore and tried to
lie about that fact and don't take responsibility and so on and bla bla bla
more FUD.
Don't talk about the attack (onless you know the facts). YOu make the same
mistake as RMS. I and You have nothing to do with that, no matter if it took
place or not. Some individual may be did it, but he does not represend me.
Please, think, think, think! There are enough lies and facts that we can use.
Don't use that attack. We don't know what happend, cause we didn't do it! End of
the story! NoAttack[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 06:03 PM EDT |
I think it would be dangerous to refute SCO's claims that they suffered a DOS. I
think it entirely possible that their first downtime WAS caused by a DOS [note
that the traceroute posted on Groklaw the first night had a crucial typo]. If
so, SCO could easily claim that the other downtime -which I agree does not look
like a DOS - was caused by the need to upgrade their machine in response to the
attack.
In other words, there is a trap we could walk into that looks like this:
Groklaw: There is no evidence that Linux violates SCO's software, nor is there
any evidence that SCO suffered a DOS attack.
SCO: Well, we can't release our evidence of Linux copyright violations because
that is needed for our pending $3billion lawsuiit against IBM, but we will be
happy to release the evidence of the attack
[convincing evidence of initial DOS + ESR's bogus letter]
Media: Open Source advocates suffered a stunning defeat when SCO released the
evidence they have been clamouring for. The evidence included a letter from the
Rebel Leader of Open Source claiming responsibility for the controversy. IBM was
not available for comment. Billy Harris[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 06:05 PM EDT |
No Attack, I read your post after submitting mine and absolutely agree with
you. Billy Harris[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 06:20 PM EDT |
I don't speak or write good english, but i can read and understand english and i
really get nervous that the linux community make the same mistake. If you don't
know the facts, don't use it! I'm a windows user, but the facts, ethic, moral,
and truth are with the Linux community on this one, so please use these facts,
truths, morals and tell the world where SCO was (is) lying! NoAttack[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 06:24 PM EDT |
Re: John G's revisons to his letter.
John, you might want to check your sources for the Sun and Mircosoft "licenses"
to make sure that they are "perpetual, etc."
Reading the last 10Q, it would seem that these licenseses are only good for a
year with an option for an extension, of one year.
If you have better information than I, you might want to referrence it in the
paragraph. D.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 06:59 PM EDT |
Wild Bill, Adam Baker is right about the Caldera Systems / Caldera International
split. The Caldera that got the settlement from Microsoft is a different
company from the Caldera that went public.
The Caldera that went public even mentions this in their S-1 IPO registration --
they say that they spun off an unrelated business unit.
As far as our PR for the DDOS goes, I'd like to see ESR contact SCO and ask for
the name of the agent in charge in the investigation. Then ESR calls that agent
and reports all the information known to ESR. Then ESR says that he has done
these two things. That cleans up open source's reputation: we cooperate with
the FBI to stop illegal actions.
If SCO says "sorry we won't tell you the name of the agent in charge of our
investigation", then ESR reports *that* and SCO gets a black eye.
(I already wrote ESR back when he first talked about the phone call that he got,
but got no response. I expect that he got a lot of mail during that time.) mec[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 07:18 PM EDT |
FYI, I believe that we can register with PR Newswire as a company for a year for
$100. Then there's a cost for each news release, but I don't think it's that
much. Here's what they say about using SCO's ticker in our press release:
"Tickers For Publicly Traded Companies
Publicly traded companies automatically get their ticker
symbol included in every release they issue. This is required
so the releases will index properly on the hundreds of Web
sites and databases carrying PR Newswire copy. The use of
ticker symbols NOT belonging to the company issuing the
news release will only be permitted if the news involving
the second company is determined to be “material” by
PR Newswire or if the ticker belongs to the issuing
organization’s parent company or subsidiary. If applicable,
please list additional tickers and respective exchanges:
..."
If you guys came up with some kind of press release that could get accepted with
SCO's ticker, I'd be willing to spring for the couple hundred bucks for PR
Newswire.
Mike Michael Flaster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 07:50 PM EDT |
pj, oops-sorry... BUT, I copied the wrong version and e-mailed it to you... RE:
annon quotes above - The URLs had more and I sent you the version that was
lacking! For example: The first time that I have ever seen the *FORK* word
quoted from the mouth of a Caldera/SCO offical should have been in the above
version of the reading (in this case it is Ransom Love's mouth that says
*FORK*...)! AND the second quote that was not in the version I sent is also
LOVE saying: "In the future, all Linux applications will have a price tag".
Quote 1 (that should have been sent)
http://www.linuxjournal.
com/article.php?sid=5406
["Linux is being pulled across the spectrum of IT solutions, and a single kernel
won't scale," Ransom says. The considerations that are important to embedded
Linux, to the small server market Linux rules now, and to the midrange and
high-end server markets are different.
As Linux "forks" — hopefully through a proliferation of compile-time options,
not a real fork, Ransom hastens to add — the high-end parts will end up
participating in some sort of technology-sharing arrangement with UnixWare.
So, Linux, UnixWare, Openserver, Monterey (or whatever they're calling it now) —
what is the secret master plan? I draw a chart — OSes down the left, years
across the top, fill in "Linux 2.4" in 2001 with a question mark, and ask Ransom
to fill in the rest. Arrows sprout from Linux and spread like fungus tendrils
into the "UnixWare" and "Monterey" areas — that's the compatibility thing — and
a big arrow moves forward into the future along the UnixWare/Linux dividing
line. This represents the spawn of Linux and UnixWare, an über-OS with a
yet-to-be-determined licensing policy. Ransom says you'll be able to see the
source code, but parts will be open source, and parts will be "viewable source"
— you'll be able to read it, but not modify and redistribute it.]
Quote 2 (also missed this quote by from Ransom Love)!
http://zdnet.com.com
/2100-11-530155.html?legacy=zdnn
[The truth is, according to Love, nothing is for free. "Someone must pay for it.
All these small modifications in the code... all this does cost money. To bring
it to the point: The only way to make Linux a successful business is to cash in.
This is the other side of the medal. In the future, all Linux applications will
have a price tag. That's the job of the movement's marketing department. You
will have to pay for it, but of course less than you would pay for NT products
because one thing is clear: our main competitor is Microsoft." ] annon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 07:59 PM EDT |
The letter should be detailed and substatiated with the facts only. Without
proof to dispute the allegations we should not directly address them as lies,
even if pure common sense says they are. Instead we should ask "Why were people
told the website was down for an maitenance cycle upgrade?"
Any response to Darl's FUD has to bne based in fact, Personally I love the way
ESR, Perrens and Linus handled it. Polite, nice to the point and sharply. For
any Dungeons and Dragons players they practically hit McBride with a +10 Sword
on a natural critical hit doing double damage (ouch).
Fact is McBride wants to steal Linux, we know it, and he knows we know it. So
lets make sure everyone else knows it too. Shaun[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 08:14 PM EDT |
This month's form-3 and form-4 stock transactions, so far
Ryan Tibbitts ("General Counsel and Corp. Sec") gets 65,000 options
http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000110254203
000063/xslF345X02/edgardoc.xml
Olson sells 7000 shares at $17.52 to $17.7 (and buys 3000 at $2.07)
http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000110254203
000061/xslF345X02/edgardoc.xml
Broughton sells 5000 at $18.05 to $18.09
http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000110254203
000059/xslF345X02/edgardoc.xml
Broughton sells 5000 at $14.71 to $14.721
http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000110254203
000057/xslF345X02/edgardoc.xml quatermass - SCO delenda est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 08:15 PM EDT |
If I were Linus, I would have replied something along these lines.
Darl, thanks for the business offer. I have long been wondering how to convert
linux into cash. Wouldnt I, like anybody, love to make billions of dollars from
my efforts.
Unfortunately, there are just a couple of issues.
All of the many people who have contributed to linux did so under the
impression that their work would always be freely available to anyone who was
also prepared to make the work freely available, and seeking their unanimous
consent to close linux is something I will happily leave to you.
I understand there are also a few legal matters outstanding that need to be
settled before we could take matters further.
Yours etc peter garrone[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 08:19 PM EDT |
Darl McBride Disappears!
http://timransomsfeeblemind.blog
spot.com
Thanks again
P.S., sorry I have nothing but humour to contribute Tim Ransom[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 08:22 PM EDT |
Brian Proffitt comments on Dar'ls letter. May have already been posted
here.
http://linuxtoda
y.com/infrastructure/2003091201426OPCDDV Gerry Tool[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 08:55 PM EDT |
Pik, you have quoted Johathan Schwartz completely out of context. The subject
was about the problem he had to apply for a patent when he has not Ms Word and
that the patent office only accept Word documents. He wasn't telling not to use
Open Source, he just said that it was not relevant in the present discussion.
Its, I think, a good example of what Mr McDribe (or whatever) was doing with
Bruce Perens quote... jeanph01[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 08:58 PM EDT |
annon: A little more recently:
In January of this year IBM became a Technology Partner of SCO (United Linux).
United Linux is “a partnership of industry-leading Linux companies combining
their intellectual property".
HP is also a partner. In fact almost all of the Major Project Monterey partners
are still working together on The Carrier Grade Linux Project. Project.http://www.suse.co.uk/uk/company/press/press_releases/archive
03/ul_cgl.html
On March 17 of this year Opinder Bawa,formerly of IBM and Toshiba, but then Vice
President of Technolgy and Development at SCO wrote an article for
Computerworld. It was titled "How To Integrate Linux With Unix. His last
suggestion was:
4. Contact the necessary vendors and gather the binaries and source code needed
to allow Unix applications to run on Linux and Linux applications to run on
Unix.
http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/story/0,10801,79146,00.html
I think we should ask Darl and SCO to make a decision to either share our IP and
technology, or to sue us over it. I for one am tired of seeing them try to do
both. Harlan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 09:00 PM EDT |
Sorry about the busted link.
href="http://www.suse.co.uk/uk/company/press/press_releases/archive03/ul_cgl.htm
l">http://www.suse.co.uk/uk/company/press/press_releases/archive03/ul_cgl.html
a> Harlan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 09:00 PM EDT |
Michael, thank you for your offer. I think, though, that it's considerably more
expensive than $100. Can you find out? See what kind of deal you can make and
let us know, pls. If you can't, post that you can't and someone else can then do
it.
They're online, so checking shouldn't be hard. We'd want a one-time use, if
they sell that way, not a year's
subscription, which is more realistically going to be in the thousands. pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 09:16 PM EDT |
Quatermass said in the previous comments "but I'm struggling to understand how
SCO could think they can have suffered so much damage from IBM." in relation to
the $1 billion claim.
Look at it this way. You write software and sell it and support services. IBM
made $589 million on operating system software and $2.7 billion on middleware,
mostly WebSphere and DB/2, in the last quarter alone. And how much did Novell
pay AT&T for UNIX? (And double the number to account for inflation.)
Or - Red Hat and SuSE charge about $1000 per year for Linux support and there
are 2.5 million Linux servers out there. Wouldn't you like a piece of the
action? With a decent product and an aggressive company it is quite possible for
a good developer to write £1million dollars worth of code a year. Of course
those dollars have to support more than just the developer in the company.
Tim, no need to apologise for your humour :-)) Chris Priest[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 09:19 PM EDT |
PJ,
One point to remember, is that McB's letter is a recap of the BS that
Caldera/SCOG has been spewing since 2001, and that there are four active
responses to this c**p. Two active cases in Germany and two in the US.
Remember how you headlined the article "McBride Trolls, Hoping You'll Say
Something Legally Stupid".
McBride, Sontag and to a lesser extent Stowell, are trying prop up a dead
company to allow the principals to escape. This is common in small/medium
enterpises here in America.
The Lindon gang is executing their "exit strategy". D.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 10:06 PM EDT |
D said:
McBride, Sontag and to a lesser extent Stowell, are trying prop up a dead
company to allow the principals to escape. This is common in small/medium
enterpises here in America.
The Lindon gang is executing their "exit strategy".
I think this is a very important point that D makes - even though it may be
speculation at some level, as it ties together the falsehoods, the trolling and
other activities into a cohesive whole that makes sense.
Most business people - even the crooked ones I have dealt with in the past, at
least behaved with decorum and tried to hide their motives, but Darl, et. al.
are just hanging it all out there for everyone to see.
It it is handled right, it may even present a pattern sufficient to generate
some legal interest by folks we whose attention we want to get. Paul
Penrod[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 10:09 PM EDT |
I think that the Dear Darl open letter is a good idea. Not for convincing Darl
of anything, but as a public anti-FUD document. What I really think should be
done though is for someone to compile a list of points that a savvy journalist,
especially someone with a good legal background, could ask in an interview with
Darl. So far he has not been asked any really pointed questions and has totally
ignored any of the points that have been raised by members of the OSS community
in the interviews and public statements that he and the rest of the SCO gang
have been uttering.
It would be nigh impossible to cover all of the points, but such things as
the contracts and side letters, derivative works, the BPF code that does not
have the BSD copyight, trade secrets, SCO's grandiose statements of its products
versus the reality of its dismal performance, how US copyright law trumps the
GPL, etc. I am sure that someone could put together a really tough interview
sheet. Finding an interviewer that is knowledgeable enough to ask those
questions and do the follow up questions is one problem, but I am sure that
someone in the OSS community knows just the right person. Then getting Darl to
actually agree to such an interview is probably the biggest hurdle. He seems to
want to speak only when he can control what questions are asked and by whom, as
well as how many.
Glenn Glenn Thigpen[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 10:13 PM EDT |
Chris, IANAL, but your number doesn't work for me. I thought the damages that
SCO is claiming from IBM are supposed to have some relationship to IBM's alleged
unlawful actions.
> IBM made $589 million on operating system software and $2.7 billion on
middleware, mostly WebSphere and DB/2, in the last quarter alone.
From what I can tell, SCO was getting any royalties from AIX anyway. I can't see
any relationship between WebSphere/DB/2 and SCO's Unixware sales or lack
thereof.
> And how much did Novell pay AT&T for UNIX? (And double the number to account
for inflation.)
And how much did SCO/Caldera pay SCO/Tarantella for UNIX? From what I can make
out a LOT less than Novell paid AT&T. And SCO/Caldera got a distribution
channel, a division of SCO/Tarantella, Unixware, Open Server etc. for their
money too. They actually valued all the UNIX assets at compartively very
little, in SCO's own finanical statements.
Furthermore, software and R&D assets generally get worth LESS over time. Most
companies, including I think SCO, depreciate intellectual property assets over
time.
This is how it appears in Caldera's July 2001 10-Q (remember this was before
SCO/Caldera did a reverse split so share numbers are a multiple of today's share
numbers)
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000103570401500341/d9063
1e10-q.txt
In May 2001, the Company acquired significant assets and operations
from Tarantella, Inc. in exchange for: (i) the issuance of 16 million shares of
common stock (1.6 million of which are being held in escrow); (ii) the issuance
of options to purchase up to an aggregate of 1.7 million shares of common stock
in exchange for options to purchase Tarantella common stock held by people who
became employees of Caldera; (iii) $23 million in cash, including the
forgiveness of $7 million previously advanced to Tarantella; and (iv) a
non-interest bearing promissory note in the amount of $8 million that will be
paid in quarterly installments of $2 million beginning July 2002. In addition,
if the OpenServer line of business generates revenue in excess of specified
thresholds during the three-year period following the acquisition, Caldera will
pay Tarantella 45% of the excess revenue. The following table summarizes the
components of the consideration paid to Tarantella (in thousands except per
share amounts)
SCO/Caldera in the table at bottom of page 9, give total value of deal as
$93,787,000.
On page 10, they break out some values from the this $93.8m, specifically for
technology/IP (this would be in thousands of dollars):-
Existing technology (consisting primarily of UnixWare and OpenServer)
5,800
Acquired in-process research and development
1,500
Trade name and trademarks
800
In the same 10-Q, they value ALL intangible assets (page 2), at $35.562m
(Incidentally in April 2003, they value ALL intangible assets at $9.689m http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000110465903012299/j2045_1
0q.htm )
So IBM is supposed to have done $1bn or $3bn of damages to a business that SCO
acquired, 2 years ago, for $93.8m, and whose IP they valued at time, at approx
$8.1m??
> Red Hat and SuSE charge about $1000 per year for Linux support and there are
2.5 million Linux servers out there. Wouldn't you like a piece of the action?
Personally I wouldn't as I'm not in that business :-) But I agree SCO might.
However that's hardly a realistic assessment of any damage by IBM's alleged
actions. IBM is alleged to have done something to damage SCO's UNIX business.
IBM is not alleged to have damaged SCO's Linux business. The fact that SCO is
not sufficiently cashing on in any Linux business, does not seem to be in the
complaint - and so I would conclude IBM is not even alleged to have done
anything to stop SCO getting a slice of the Linux action.
> With a decent product and an aggressive company it is quite possible for a
good developer to write £1million dollars worth of code a year. Of course
those dollars have to support more than just the developer in the company.
The July 2001 10-Q has quarterly R&D of $6.662m plus non-cash total of $1.578m,
plus in-process of $1.5m (the last one I suspect was written off but not sure).
I have not looked thru every 10-Q but I suspect it's near the highest
The April 2003 10-Q has R&D of $2.542m plus stock-based compensation on R&D of
less than $0.3m
Even if IBM's alleged actions destroyed all SCO R&D over a long period, and
SCO's R&D were worth a great multiple of expenses that SCO spent on R&D over an
equally long period of time, it's hard to get from these sort of numbers to $1bn
or $3bn.
I have to ask again, what rationale lies behind the damages claim. IANAL, but it
just seems hard to fathom for me. Especially in that it suddenly multipled by
3X. I also think that it's very lucky for SCO's media coverage that the damages
allegedly caused by IBM are such a nice round number. quatermass - SCO delenda
est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 10:39 PM EDT |
Quartermass and Alex, your research produces a lot more results than my
worst-case-scenarioing. Good stuff
Re: the Linux today article
Brian must have read my submissions here. : ) I've been saying that SCO is
signalling out in the open through interviews and press releases for a long
time.
No need for backroom discussions with MS and SUN when the press will carry your
message for you just fine.
Darl's posturing as the victim is not flying.
A lot of people are not happy about US litigious contagion.
You're not a victim if you're "fighting for the right to buy a 2nd house"
Trying to steal from volunteers (something that has not seen a lot of coverage
in the press, <sigh>) does not get "good little guy being put down". Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 11:13 PM EDT |
What ever happened to 'fiduciary responsibility' in the United States?
As the CEO of a publically traded company, Mr. McBride _has_ obligations,
one of which is to his shareholders. Another is to the SEC (unless I am
missing something...)
The 'blather' of Mr. McBride (and other "fiducaries" of The SCO Group) should
be fair game to all 'code of conduct' laws in THE UNITED STATES. <hint!>
PJ? Gerard[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 11:35 PM EDT |
Scott Lazar, until we know the substance of SCO's allegations such an audit
would be a waste of time.
Gerard, SCO is set up in such a way that Canopy group basically controls it.
Darl's fiduciary responsibilities are to Canopy. Shareholder motions must be
submitted months before the meetings, it requres 2/3 board of directors approval
to allow a new member on the board of directors.
Non-Canopy shareholders are SOL as far as wielding any influence or oversight
ability.
Many of the state fraud laws require citizens to sue the con artists. It
requires clear and eggregious fraud to get the authorities involved. As long as
SCO has that one small thin thread (the contracts) to hang by It looks as if law
enforcement will do nothing, private citizens and companies will have to file
suit.
I do believe that many people have complained to FTC, SEC, various state
attorneys General and the FBI. I suppose FBI is much too busy with pot smokers
and chronic pain patient heroin users, FTC with Listerine, SEC with Grasso,
etc.... to care much about this sort of thing. (I am joking, I believe one
complaint will go in the right ear (hey, that reminds me of an 80s song...)
soon, and when that happens, SCO better have a good response ready. ...
See here for
places you can complain (add your own too!!!) Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 11:37 PM EDT |
Glenn,
We are working on exactly what you suggest. Please, if anyone thinks of a good
question that should be on the list, please post it here. We will be preparing
a sheet of proposed questions for journalists to ask Mr. McBride and his
troops. pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 11:57 PM EDT |
Questions:
Some people charge that Microsoft and Sun did not buy their licenses from you
because of any legal need, but instead bought them to help you scare users away
from Linux. Would you like to comment on that charge?
Almost all of the lines of code that you claim infringe on SCO's IP are actually
copyrighted by other companies. Do you believe you would be able to sue a Linux
user for using code whose copyright you do not own?
Are there any legal issues that make SCO hesitant to send Linux IP invoices? r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 12:00 AM EDT |
Does anyone see what's happening? Groklaw is becoming kind of a temporary
volunteer press relations department for Linux. And a very good one.
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 12:07 AM EDT |
Question:
Of the code in Linux that infringes on your rights, how much is line by line
copied code, how much is obfuscated code and how much is derivatives works?
All of the code in Linux has been viewable by the public for the entire time you
claim code was being put in illegally. Since Caldera and SCO were both
intimately involved in the Linux development process, why didn't your company
object when the code was first put in? r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 12:14 AM EDT |
Question:
At SCO Forum you labelled code as being from Unix System V that has been
identified as the berkeley packet filter routine code from the BSD operating
system. Is that code properly attributed in the SCO code base? r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 12:31 AM EDT |
slightly off topic, but Microsoft is using the SCO lawsuit for FUD.
http://www.gul
f-news.com/Articles/news.asp?ArticleID=97436
looks like microsoft purchased a lincense all right. a license to spread
FUD. Dave Mears[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 01:27 AM EDT |
Dave Mears says "slightly off topic, but Microsoft is using the SCO lawsuit for
FUD.
http://www.gul
f-news.com/Articles/news.asp?ArticleID=97436
looks like microsoft purchased a lincense all right. a license to spread FUD.
"
Not that this was unexpected. Microsoft and their supporters will use any
opportunity to discredit Linux. Of course, Linux developers *do* respect
intellectual property (copyrights, patents, trademarks) but if Microsoft repeats
a lie often enough then ... well you know the rest.
Though if any Microsoft spokesperson claims that Linux developers don't respect
IP, you just mention Microsoft vs Timeline and watch them squirm. Microsoft
supporters should not be throwing stones.
The problem is that Microsoft can't compete with Linux on price. TCO is nebulous
but even then I think Linux has the upper hand. Microsoft could compete by
producing better quality products but this doesn't seem to be their strong suit.
FUD (and legislation, including IP lawsuits) are the only effective weapons
against the Linux revolution. Nathan Hand[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 02:10 AM EDT |
Someone asked about my source for stating that the MS and Sun agreements were
perpetual licenses. I can't find the post to respond to it, but the source is
the SCO 10-Q filing from 6/13/03: http://tinyurl.com/n7vj
"This effort resulted in the execution of two license agreements during the
April 30, 2003 quarter. The first of these licenses was with a long-time
licensee of the UNIX source code which is a major participant in the UNIX
industry and was a “clean-up” license to cover items that were outside the scope
of the initial license. The second license was to Microsoft Corporation
(“Microsoft”), and covers Microsoft’s UNIX compatibility products, subject to
certain specified limitations. These license agreements will be typical
of those we expect to enter into with developers, manufacturers, and
distributors of operating systems in that they are non-exclusive, perpetual,
royalty-free, paid up licenses to utilize the UNIX source code, including
the right to sublicense that code." (Emphasis mine.) John Gabriel[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 04:08 AM EDT |
Hi Quatermass,
I always thought that claimed damages were a starting point for negotiations.
ISTR reading somewhere in Groklaw that not even lawyers have to be truthful when
negotiating a sale, otherwise how can you bargain? The judge and jury will
decide the actual value, if any, of damages due.
Suppose you go down the junk shop and pick up a nice vase for $100, and that's
what you believe then and that's what you tell the insurance company it's worth.
Later on you figure out it's an antique worth $1000, and someone you know steals
it, so you take them to court to get the vase or money back. Do you ask for $100
or $1000?
I take your point that it's SCOGs Unix, not Linux, business that's been damaged,
but looking at PJs first first post here, we can see that SCOG had plans for
mixing the two together to enhance the value of both. What would that value have
been if the Itanic hadn't sunk and Linux on its own stayed confined to small
systems? I think my IBM/RedHat financial argument shows that $1billion is not an
unreasonable starting point from SCOGs point of view. (This is not to say that I
think SCOG should or will win.:)
If RedHat plays it right, I can see them being a billion dollar a year company
in five to ten years time. SCOG wanted to be there too with a combination of
license and service fees, and some of those damages will be for their lost
future. Chris Priest[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 04:43 AM EDT |
pj - you said "Michael, thank you for your offer. I think, though, that it's
considerably more expensive than $100. Can you find out? See what kind of deal
you can make and let us know, pls. If you can't, post that you can't and someone
else can then do it."
Actually, it's off of their web site. https://prndirect.prnewswire.com/brochures/PR_Newswire_Membership_Appli
cation.pdf Page 2, it says:
"PR Newswire facilities are governed by Federal and State
regulations. News copy and other information may be
submitted to PR Newswire by members only, who are solely
responsible for payment of all invoiced fees which are due
upon receipt. Services may be withheld from overdue
accounts. PR Newswire is a membership association.
The 12-month membership fee is $100.00."
It later says:
"News releases are billed according to word count. The
first 400 words carry a base charge and each additional
100 words is subject to a length charge."
but doesn't specify the charges.
I had a small company a couple of years back, and we joined a wire service and
did some press releases. It was surprisingly inexpensive. Michael Flaster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 04:51 AM EDT |
BTW, in order to join you have to be a company. So we'd have to have some
company name.
Maybe the press release should just be something like "This is to announce the
formation of Groklaw, Inc., a company devoted to giving a public face to Linux
in its battle with SCOX. We have put together a web page with lots of useful
info here _____. Our main points are ____."
Note I don't think we should call it "Groklaw Inc."
Maybe that's the main idea - that we should form a company devoted to being the
PR engine for Linux. Or at least "a" PR engine for Linux. r.a. posted
something to that effect above.
Not sure if we have any right to "speak" for Linux, or how that would work. Michael
Flaster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 05:55 AM EDT |
I haven't had time to follow the "open letter to Darl" discussion, but I've
written a possible version of a section on intellectual property in case it
might be useful. I'm not a lawyer, but I think it reflects what I've read here
regarding the relevant laws.
Your use of the phrase "intellectual property" is imprecise and tends to confuse
what are, in reality, separate issues. United States law provides four distinct
types of protections that are sometimes loosely lumped together under the term
"intellectual property." These concern copyrights, patents, trademarks, and
trade secrets. Since SCO holds neither the Unix trademark nor Unix patents, it
is clear that any violations of SCO's intellectual property rights must involve
some combination of trade secrets and copyrights.
Trade secret laws hinge on secrets' remaining secret. They allow legal action
against those responsible for illegally disclosing a trade secret, but do not
allow legal action against the general public for using a former trade secret if
it becomes public knowledge. If laws were violated in providing SCO trade
secrets to those responsible for the Linux kernel, it is entirely proper for SCO
to take appropriate legal action against those who knowingly participated in the
violations. But now that the secrets have been revealed, they are no longer
secrets. The distribution and use of Linux versions containing former SCO trade
secrets is not illegal.
That leaves only copyright law as a possible source for SCO "intellectual
property" rights claims against Linux end users or against the Linux community
as a whole. Copyrights cover only the expression of ideas, not the ideas
themselves, so methods of doing something cannot be copyrighted. Thus, the
inclusion of "Unix methods" in Linux does not constitute a copyright violation.
Similarly, you have no authority to demand payment based on copyrights that are
owned by others unless the appropriate rights have been assigned to you. Even
if every single line of Linux were contributed in violation of a contract you
had with someone else, your legal remedy would be under contract law, not under
copyright law.
Thus, for those of us not involved in the theft of trade secrets or the breach
of contracts, the only real question is how many lines of Linux (if any) are
illegally copied from copyrighted SCO code. Those are the only lines that
matter in the slightest in determining what changes, if any, would be needed to
bring Linux into compliance with your intellectual property rights.
We make this point not to downplay any violations that might fall into
categories other than copyright, but rather to make it clear which types of
actions SCO can legally hold the entire Linux community accountable for and
which actions you can hold only the specific perpetrators accountable for.
Demanding that Linux end users pay for offenses they had nothing to do with, as
you are doing with your licensing program, at best merely compounds one
injustice with another. If in fact your rights were violated, true justice can
come only at the expense of the guilty, not at the expense of the innocent. Nathan
Barclay[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 06:54 AM EDT |
BTW, do you do all your communication through these comments? It's a bit
tedious to check all the time.
If anyone wants to e-mail me, see flaster.net.
Mike Michael Flaster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 09:19 AM EDT |
Question:
SGI has stated that the 80 lines of code shown in your presentation were added
in a manner consistent with its contracts and that "SCO has no basis for a claim
against us"
http://linuxinsider.com/per
l/story/31536.html
How do you respond to that statement?
In the Raelian human-cloning hoax, the Raelians said that they were unable to
provide evidence except under unusual and restricted circumstances. Do you
believe there are any similarities between that situation and the current
SCO/Linux issue? r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 09:27 AM EDT |
Its a good thread, my only suggestion to PJ is to not rush the product. Don't
fire off something Monday you will regret Wednesday. Release it when its
done. Ed L.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 10:12 AM EDT |
Questions for journalists to ask SCO
- Can you explain the process that SCO uses with it's developers to ensure that
code they put into your
products is not the property of closed source companies or open source
projects?
- Why can no one who has called SCO been able to purchase a Linux license, will
any be available before 10/15/2003 when the price goes up? If not, what was the
purpose of the tiered pricing?
- Since SCO is in this for the long haul and believes that they will ultimately
prevail, why are exectutives selling their stocks and no executives purchasing
any stock on the open market?
- Why did Opinder Bawa CTO of SCO decide to sell all his stock in June, 2003 and
resign effective July, 2003?
- Doesn't is make it difficult to continue to develop and support your existing
products without a CTO to head this effort?
- What are the terms of the automatic stock divestiure plan? Is there a maximum
number of shares per stock holder participating? A maximum time limit to the
plan?
- Why has does the SCO Linux license published on it's web site say that if SCO
no SCO 'IP' is found in Linux that the license holder cannot get a refund?
- Wouldn't it be more equitable for SCO to put any Linux license fees it
receives before proving it's case in court into an escrow fund to be returned to
the licensees if SCO is not entitled to receive the fees?
- Why does SCO repeately use the blamket term 'IP' when refering to its claims,
rather than using the more legally correct terms: 'copyright', 'patent' or
'trade secret' depending on which area they are claiming.
- Why does SCO use the term 'IP' when refering to the IBM case, when in the past
when press they have conceeded that they only have a contract case and not an
'IP' with IBM.
- At the SCO Forum at lot of noise was made about the evil GPL, etc. Yet you
had a presentation entitled:"How to Use the GNU Toolkits," given by SCO engineer
Kean Johnston. SCO also says that new veraions of OpenServer and UnixWare will
include open source projects like Samba, Apache web server, OpenLDAP, Mozilla
and others. So, is Open Source only good when it supports SCO's business and
'evil' the rest of the time?
http://www.i
nfoworld.com/article/03/08/19/HNscodivide_1.html
SCO users divided over GPL - CEO says GPL is about 'destroying value'
http://www.in
foworld.com/article/03/08/19/HNscoplans_1.html
SCO updates Unix, OpenServer product plans
--
Additional resources for questions and information:
http://lwn.net/Articles/42784/
Hard questions I bet SCO is unwilling to answer
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/wlg/3702
A SCO-Fighting Press Kit
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 10:45 AM EDT |
I have been reading the various comments for the open letter and most seem to
deal with details of law, technology, and other subjects of little interest to
the man in the street. These details are essential, but I don't think they are
enough; if we want to get published and quoted, then we need something short and
quotable. backed up with all the detail for those who get interested enough to
want them. One message that I think should go in everything is "Show us the
code, and we'll remove it or show that it is
legitimate." At any rate, here is my draft of the short and quotable
version:
Dear Mr. McBride,
Your open letter suggests that SCO would like to enter a partnership with the
open source community. But it is not clear that SCO has anything to offer.
A business model? You never made a profit under your old business model and
your new business model is sustainable only as long as you can postpone a court
verdict, if that long.
A model of due diligence? You sold Linux for four years without ever realizing
that the GPL is a contract that imposes obligations as well as granting rights.
You hired and paid programmers to work on Linux without ever making it clear to
them what they could or could not properly contribute to the kernel.
Goodwill and the SCO name? The only goodwill that you have left is from the
people locked into SCO software, and that will evaporate as soon as they get
some alternative running.
Legal advice? Your attorney Mark Heise has made the risible claim that federal
law pre-empts the right of a copyright holder to authorize the making of more
than one copy of his work. Your own open letter fails to recognize that the GPL
grants a license rather than transfers ownership.
Your code base? We wrote Linux without reference to your code, and created
something better than what you have.
Monetizing our software? We aren't doing this for the money; we are doing it
because it's fun, because we need the software for our own use, and for the
respect of our peers. If you don't understand our motives, then you're a
liability rather than an asset.
Freedom from false claims and frivolous lawsuits? We can get that through the
legal system more cheaply and reliably than from you.
In short, your own actions have cost you the respect that is prerequisite to a
successful partnership. We don't need you as a partner, and we don't want
you.
Nevertheless, there is still a possible road by which you can regain our
respect, if you have the will and courage. Tell us specifically where you claim
Linux infringes on your intellectual property. Which files, which lines. Then
for each of these we will either remove the offending code or show that we have
the legitimate right to use it. If you are willing to deal in good faith, we can
resolve the issues that lie between us. Make no mistake, this is a long road
and uncertain of success. But it is the only road. Paul Hughett[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 11:14 AM EDT |
Wonderful comments, and I appreciate all the help. I will try to post in the
comments section a draft of the exec summary by tomorrow.
I will do my best not to let you down. After I post, you can edit and fix and
suggest. If we can do it by Monday, that is ideal. If it isn't done, we'll
postpone.
We can't call ourselves Groklaw Inc. unless we actually incorporate. I will
never do that. An LLC I might consider. There's expense associated with that.
I don't really see the need for it though. If anyone wants to persuade me
differently, please do so by email. Just click on the envelope on the left side
of the home page. I don't want to post the address because of spam. The reason
I don't see the need is a lot of reporters read Groklaw already. It will
continue to establish itself based on content, as it already has.
The exec summary will be short. The lengthy proof document is another story,
but that will be available here and referenced in the summary Dear Darl letter,
for those that wish to have it. We want to do an attached suggested questions
for journalists as well.
On the "attacks", I'm in the group that has doubts whether they happened, but
they might have. Rather than take a position one way or another, why not ask him
to make public his server logs and his upstream server logs? Anyone see
anything wrong with that? pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 12:21 PM EDT |
Question:
Is Open Source really the problem here? If IBM, SGI and Sequent had given or
sold to code to another closed source operating system such as Windows or a
competing Unix variety, would SCO have the same issues, other than the obvious
fact that SCO likely would never have found out?
About the attacks, I don't quite want to say they don't matter, but high profile
companies are very often attacked and its almost never news. SCO has become, in
a way, a high profile company so its done what other companies have done which
is put up defenses against script-kiddie hackers that low profile companies
don't have to worry about.
To the degree that this was ever news, it was news because ESR claimed it was
"one of us" even though he didn't know the attacker's identity. It was very
irresponsible for him to do that and Darl is trying to extract as much damage to
the Linux community as he can from that mistake. If we fight on this issue, we
are only helping Darl.
If ddos' were news, ibm.com could hold a press conference every twenty
minutes. r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 12:28 PM EDT |
"Rather than take a position one way or another, why not ask him to make public
his server logs and his upstream server logs? Anyone see anything wrong with
that?" Nothing that I can see: your request puts the burden of proof on the the
SCO Group where it properly belongs. blacklight[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 12:31 PM EDT |
A dos is one step away from a hate mail letter.
If Darl claims he's getting hate mail we shouldn't ask him to prove it. I guess
he probably is. That's not one of the major issues here. That's not something
for us to be debating.
I'm glad SCO has upgraded its system to handle attacks better but we shouldn't
help Darl turn a non-issue even into a minor issue. r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 12:38 PM EDT |
i dont think the dos attack should even be addressed.lots of companies get them
it isnt necessarily all linux users
it is usually an individual
also even MS bugs have caused dos attacks so that shouldnt be in the letter
it should be the things that we have facts for that really show the truth
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">brenda
banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 01:49 PM EDT |
jeanph01 -
Regarding the Jonathan Schwartz quotes, I quite disagree. I stated the context
of the quotes at the very beginning of my post. His claims that open source
companies are sneakily "Creating dependencies" because "they don't like
interoperability" are still FUD, in any context. My objections to the piece are
two: one, that his claims of open source's irrelevancy in the push for open
standards are complete rubbish (open source software authors tend to care a
great deal about open standards, having created many of them themselves), and
two, that he seems to be using that as an excuse to say a few other negative
things about open source. We've seen that Sun is not on our side here, and we
know it's in their battle plan to move people away from Linux and from FL/OSS. I
stand by my earlier post. pik[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 01:53 PM EDT |
Question:
What specific things does SCO do to ensure that all of its code doesn't infringe
on others rights that Linux developers do not do? r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 02:38 PM EDT |
Answer: nothing. They did not know and did not care that their NDA-ed code was
BSD. I expect that we'll eventually find so much public domain, BSD, Linux code
and licensee code in their UNIX V codebase that the judge will have to throw out
their copyrights claim. If the SCO Group has no compunction about misreading its
UNIX license contracts and trying to hijack Linux, I seriously doubt these are
the guys who would waste any time setting up any kind of safeguard against
infringement against others: it would imply that they have the kind of respect
for others that they just haven't demonstrated in the last six months. They have
been careless about bigger things like getting their facts right and reading the
letter and spirit of the law right. All these assessments converge to a
conclusion that not trampling on the rights of others is this management's top
priority. blacklight[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 03:01 PM EDT |
The "attack" was a large chunk of Darl's letter and it was the headline around
the world. We can't ignore the issue and call it a reply to his letter. So pls.
just think of ways to answer it that you feel will be effective. I have already
decided that we will not say that it did or didn't happen. We can mention that
many in the community have doubts. But we can't say it didn't happen, because
without server logs, no one knows, including Raymond, in my view. But Darl's
FUD was: you are counterculture creeps and the "attack" proves it and you need
to police yourselves better.
That is what needs an answer of some sort. I have already seen everyone's
opinion, so if you have anything new to add, this is the time. pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 03:07 PM EDT |
If SCO had been on the receiving and of a DoS that had been responsible for even
a significant proportion of their downtime then they would have notified the
FBI. At that point their server logs are evidence in a criminal investigation
and they can't reveal them.
If we want to talk about the attacks at all in a letter then to my mind it has
to be on the basis of have they been reported. In an interview it would be
appropriate to ask about the pattern of the downtime and if SCO were using the
discussion of a DoS as a cover to do other work on their website. Also how is a
company supposed to be respected in the area of web services when they leave
their web site down for 4 days and it takes a further week before it is working
outside business hours when most other companies who suffer such an attack are
back in a day or less. Adam Baker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 03:12 PM EDT |
The thing is, if you ask for evidence about the "attack", if he has it, he'll
present it, and we'll look bad, and if he doesn't, he'll either ignore us or
instead act indignant that we're asking for evidence that they were
attacked.
If you really want to say something about it, why don't you just make a
statement saying how scummy it is to launch a DOS attach. Just denounce it.
I imagine the mainstream is completely confident SCO was DOS'ed by some "linux
hacker". I'm not sure what you can accomplish - prove that they weren't
attacked (when in fact they might have been)? And even if they weren't, I think
it will be impossible to convince anyone. Michael Flaster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 03:43 PM EDT |
Do not even mention the supposed DDOS attack ... it's not proven, there is doubt
whether it actually happened, and ifthere are charges brought then it's tim eto
mention it. IT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE CODE!
Stick to what can be clearly shown:
SCO's adamant refusal to cooperate with the Linux developers so they can do the
respectful thing and get his alleged "IP" out of the code.
The long, tangled history of the code SCO now has and Linux ... Novell, oldSCO,
and Caldrea were all developing Linux and making UNIX work with Linux apps, and
suddenly newSCO has problems with it? That particular can of worms was
home-grown and passed along by the prevoius owner/developers of the code. Tsu Dho
Nimh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 04:00 PM EDT |
pj:
I'll just point out that Linus didn't mention the attacks in his response.
Perens also didn't mention the 80 lines of code in his response.
john:
The problem with responding paragraph by paragraph is that Darl gets to choose
all of the topics of discussion.
But if we must, how about:
resp. para 3
Mr. Raymond actually stated very clearly that that he did not know the identity
of the attacker. As Mr. Raymond has, I'll take this opportunity to state that
dos attacks are morally wrong.
resp. para 4
You are attempting to smear all supporters of Linux by the actions of some
unknown person or people, when that action never been advocated and has been
consistently denounced by many of Linux' most notable supporters.
Unfortunately, you regularly attack Linux and the community around it with
charges totally lacking in evidence or based on willful distortions of available
evidence. r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 04:08 PM EDT |
I think we may all be concentrating on the DoS bit of Darl's letter because we
saw that as a threat to us - probably because we were all so incensed with Eric
Raymond's remarks when he made them.
Looking at the recent press coverage that google can find however that doesn't
seem to be getting much attention - to be honest it looks like SCO are losing
the press war. That being the case maybe the letter should focus on what the
press do seem interested in, although from google that seems to be mainly SCOs
lack of a long term business plan! Adam Baker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 04:45 PM EDT |
Does anyone know if this http:/
/sourcefrog.net/weblog/issues/sco-vs-linux/boies-ethics.html dilemma of
David Boies has been resolved? Could be this is occupying some of his time. gumout[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 06:50 PM EDT |
John,
I don't think we should get cute on this point either.
"Mr. Raymond has stated publicly that he opposes DOS attacks. We in the
community join Mr. Raymond in clearly and strenuously opposing DOS attacks." r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 07:50 PM EDT |
Let's go for Darl McBride's throat: "While we differ with Eric Raymond [screw
you and your fast, loose and loud mouth, Eric!] in that we have doubts that the
attacks took place, we join him and Bruce Perens in condemning these attacks not
least because they interfere with our own efforts to regularly get public domain
information from your site. As a community, we bluntly reject any allegation of
yours that we as a community are somehow responsible for the actions of parties
unknown to us and over whom we have neither control or influence, and whose
actions directly interfere with our own efforts. And we reject any blame for
your irritating failure to live up to your responsibility to protect your site,
which again hinders our ability to get public domain information from your site
- assuming again that such DOS attacks took place and that you can tell the
difference between sytems that are taken down by DOS attacks and systems that
are taken down for maintenance." blacklight[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 09:41 PM EDT |
About the DOS attacks: I like what r.a. said. We condemn DOS attacks and we are
happy to co-operate with law enforcement agencies in any investigation. Say as
little as possible, but our message is: DDOS criminals are not part of our
community. And did I mention: say as little as possible? We want to get OFF
this point and onto another point.
About "questions for SCO": I think that's a great idea. I don't like some of
the questions I've seen here because they are too hostile or too easily refuted.
Remember that we have to get our message to a lot of people who *are not like
us*.
My questions for SCO: (1) Did SCO have a contract with IBM for the joint
development work of Project Monterey? (2) If you had a contract for Project
Monterey, are you going to file that contract as evidence in your suit against
IBM? mec[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|