|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 04:30 AM EDT |
I notice that on Dan Lyons blog where this story broke (site cited in the main
pdf as I know the URL isnt welcome here), Lyons says he attempted to contact PJ
for a quote but she never responded.
So is Dan "lying" Lyons lying again? Or is this something else that PJ
was dodging?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 04:47 AM EDT |
| Yes.
If you confuse OSRM and OSDL you've got a case against
PJ/Groklaw.
Now, do your research, read your history, then come back and
comment.
Start here:
Linus: "The Most Important
Thing Has Always Been That People Be Able to Trust Me" July 15 2003
OSRM
November 20 2004
---
Beating my head on a brick wall / Hard like a
stone / Ain't got time for the music / They want the blood from a clone
--George Harrison [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 08:40 AM EDT |
Wow - how convincing ! An anonymous poster parrots SCO's FUD and another quotes
Dan Lyons, a veritable paragon of journalistic thoroughness, to support the case
: run for the hills, PJ. ROFL.
For the hard of thinking out there this has all been dealt with before in
response to previous SCO astroturfing : you may want to read the article
"Same Slime, Different Day". IBM were and are one of a number of
contributors to OSDL, including SCO. OSDL is a supporter of FOSS (the clue is in
the title there) and so is PJ. It is clearly inconceivable that OSDL would want
to interact with Groklaw or PJ except at the direct behest of IBM - NOT. And
ibiblio has a long history of supporting projects related to FOSS and IBM has a
record of assisting academic programs - that's not a smoking gun, it's a damp
squib.
It's the same old, same old : if you can't challenge the argument try
challenging the messenger. If you really want to know whether there is any
substance to the claims try doing some research, perhaps here on Groklaw, and
then you can see why PJ and Groklaw are a threat to SCO - because Groklaw
reveals the truth. Money-hungry SCO refuse to believe that someone would simply
devote this much time and effort as a labour of love so they seek fanciful
explanations.
The "case" against IBM is one of sweeping accusations and an absence
of independent evidence : the "case" against PJ follows the same
pattern. I suppose SCO/BSF think that if they keep trying the same bad strategy
over and over eventually they will get lucky and it will work for them. I keep
thinking of a fly hitting a pane of glass and how well that always works out for
the fly.
----------------------------------------
Nigel Whitley[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jaywalk on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 01:01 PM EDT |
SCO are claiming that OSDL, under an IBM chairman and with Novell
representation, gave $50,000 (from funds contributed by IBM) to PJ. If true,
that does look rather whiffy. Lets be clear what's going on here.
SCO makes a big deal about PJ being supported by SCO's "enemies", hoping that
the court will assume IBM is the the only enemy IBM has. In truth, SCO has
spent the last few years expanding its list of enemies by insulting, accusing
and/or suing everybody remotely associated with Linux. So is PJ supported by
SCO's enemies? Oh, yeah.
Now where does open source come from? It's a
group effort initially developed on a volunteer basis, but it has been
increasingly supported by businesses. Some of those businesses use Linux (e.g.,
Autozone, Daimler-Chrysler) others support it for profit by using it to sell
hardware and services (e.g., IBM, Novell, Red Hat). Those companies support
Linux in various ways, including financially. And, like all companies, they
also support various charities, like educational or public service web sites.
So are those companies likely to support Groklaw? Of course.
Finally, is
PJ biased against SCO? Well, if by "bias" you mean has she come to any
conclusions about the case, that's pretty obvious too. I don't think that she
has ever claimed otherwise and hers is hardly the only blog that has. And since
when has it been a requirement that all blogs have to be strictly neutral? For
that matter, I don't see that there is a requirement that any news service is
required to be strictly neutral. It's called, "Freedom of Speech." Deal with
it.
Like so much of the rest of SCO's case this is all insinuation and
innuendo. There is no indication of wrongdoing either by PJ or IBM, but SCO's
hoping that a little thing like legal relevance won't interfere with their
ongoing FUD campaign.
---
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. ===== [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 04 2007 @ 01:47 PM EDT |
The allegation SCO makes goes like this:
1. OSDL gave money to groklaw
2. IBM is a funder of OSDL
3. The OSDL chairman was an IBM guy.
4. Therefore, IBM knew about it and implicitly approved it, if not actually
directing it to happen.
5. Therefore, PJ is influenced by payments from IBM laundered through OSDL.
Are these allegations true?
1. The quoted evidence is Dan Lyons' personal blog, where he quotes an anonymous
source. I mean, really. I don't know that the allegation is false, but the
evidence that it's true could hardly be flimsier.
2. I assume everyone agrees this is true.
3. This too.
4. No evidence for this, they just want to call it obvious, but the lame
evidence for item 1 undercuts this conclusion. Lyons quotes two board members
(one anonymously) both of whom say they didn't know about it. So why is it so
obvious that the chairman would know?
5. SCO presents no evidence that bears on this item. I guess it's just supposed
to be obvious by now that if PJ took money from OSDL, and the IBM guy knew about
it, then PJ is a pawn of IBM. Not of any of the other companies that contribute
to and serve on the board of OSDL -- just IBM.
I think that's a fair summary. My personal feeling is 1) SCO has given us no
reason to suppose OSDL gave money to groklaw, and 2) even if they did, how is
that any less lame a connection than the ibiblio thing?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 05 2007 @ 05:29 AM EDT |
| n/t [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
