McBride's New Open Letter on Copyrights 770
dtfinch writes "An open letter was posted today by Darl McBride, where he restates his claim that the GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, patent laws, copyright laws, and the DMCA. Mostly he just builds up a false image of the Free Software Foundation and open source supporters claiming that they have no respect for intellectual property and believe copyrights should be eliminated, then attacks that image, AKA the straw man attack. Nothing we haven't seen before."
basis in law! (Score:5, Interesting)
deconstucting the constitution (Score:5, Interesting)
Nowhere do I recall ever reading anything on compensation, that to me is more of an ethical issue if you ask me, but IANAL so I really don't want to stick my foot in my mouth... Or the kb in my ass. As I take the Constitution regarding copyrights is just as stated 'securing for limited times the exclusive right to their work'. SCO is turning this into a circus fanfare with a) either money the underlying issue, or b) other entities are using SCO as a puppet to do their deeds.
However, there is a group of software developers in the United States, and other parts of the world, that do not believe in the approach to copyright protection mandated by Congress. In the past 20 years, the Free Software Foundation and others in the Open Source software movement have set out to actively and intentionally undermine the U.S. and European systems of copyrights and patents.
This is serioulsy bold, and slanderous statement of this guy to make, and I'm wondering who's going to be the first to open a can of lawsuit ass on SCO. It's one thing to make known your beliefs, but to claim someone is intentionally breaking a law is no laughing matter. Pretty ballsy move. Stupid but ballsy.
Leaders of the FSF have spent great efforts, written numerous articles and sometimes enforced the provisions of the GPL as part of a deeply held belief in the need to undermine or eliminate software patent and copyright laws.
Know something, I couldn't even finish reading it because it's so dull, overrated, cumbersome to understand, and downright dumb at this point. Isn't it about time someone maybe IBM or some other bigwig came in the picture, did a hostile takeover and demoted this clown to mailroom janitor, or parking lot car washer.
Authors and Inventors (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't they (Score:5, Interesting)
If I remember right, tomorrow is the oral discovery arguments for their case against IBM. Doesn't this mean that tomorrow they have to actually justify their unwillingness to clarify the nature of their case and answer to a judge for it?
Can't wait to see what that does to their stock.
Am I totally mistaking the nature of Discovery, but doesn't it mean that any evidence they haven't submitted by tomorrow, they can't use in the case? Meaning if they don't clarify their violations, rather than just giving the names of a bunch of documents (some of which contain nothing but some #includes and a "not implemented" comment), the "linux community" can then go around confidently stating that no such violations exist?
When's Redhat's Lanham Act case get to hit court to ask for injunctions?
Anyway, it probably wouldn't be too far-out to assume Darl's letter is some kind of diversionary tactic. Or that they won't try to do something even bigger and noisier tomorrow to draw attention away from the court.
This trash was written by Boies... (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all it doesn't sound like the Darl we know and love. I've read enough of his BS and listened to him enough to know his style and this letter just doesn't have it. It tries to show some hint of intelligence which we all know McBride is devoid of. Second, the information about the Supreme Court rulings, the constitution, and the DMCA all read like a lawyer wrote them. It reads like it came from the world's most ignorant and incompetent lawyer, but it was definitely from a lawyer.
It's too bad for Boies that his name is being put on such utter trash. He did have a good reputation once, but it'll be ruined before this case is over.
Profit != Money (Score:2, Interesting)
I looked up several definitions of profit and all of them reference getting value, but none explicitly mention money. Increased stature in the community is a profit. Getting source code back because it is under the GPL is a profit.
The closest definition is:
Profit
\Pro"fit\ n. 1. Acquisition beyond expenditure; excess of value received for producing, keeping, or selling, over cost; hence, pecuniary gain in any transaction or occupation; emolument;
Getting back more source code than you produced is certainly acquisition exceeding expenditure.
The more apt one for GPL is:
profit
n. 2. Accession of good; valuable results; useful consequences; benefit; avail; gain;
--Keith
Uhh, actually - bitter protest against copyrights (Score:5, Interesting)
BITTER PROTEST AGAINST COPYRIGHTS
If I said I didn't have an incentive to grow oranges unless I could plant a tree in your yard, or if I said I didn't have an incentive to grow cotton unless I could own slaves on the plantation, most people would see this is these as the worthless shallow arguments that they are. But if I said I didn't have an incentive to to make beneficial or creative works without a copyright monopoly, then all of a sudden people just take it on faith, they don't even question it, they just assume that society would fall apart without them. In my humble opinion, this is intellectually dishonest, especially considering that the entire Renaissance happened without copyrights.
The simple fact is, there is no equivalency relationship between copyrights and property rights - incentive does not a right make. The moral and historical foundation of property derives from the fact that property has physical limits, while the foundation of copyrights dervives from kings who granted publishers monopolies in return for not publishing bad things about the monarchy. The history of copyrights is not one of rights, but control of sharing and restricting the open use of knowledge.
That is why people who copy are not criminals, thieves, or akin to pirates who board ships and murder people. No, infact they are really victims of a cruel deception. A deception that copyrights somehow financially benefit artists and creators. The simple fact is, that for every artist that makes it "big" there are literally thousands who copyrights haven't helped a bit, even hindered, or destroyed.
However, this is not the only failure of copyrights - it is just one in many issues related to copyrights that are just blown off ignored, or glossed over. Like the failures of Hollywood culture, the failures of big media to provide quality material, the failures to provide reasonably priced books to college students while tabloids are dirt cheap, and massive anti-trust behavior in the software industry to name a few.
While the problems associated with copyrights might have been bearable 20 years ago when the biggest issue was Xerox machines, today we are entering into the information age where information is so easy to copy and manipulate that there can be no middle ground. Our society will either have to control all of it or none of it. Our communications will either have to be monitored or free, our privacy to be either contunuiously probed or protected.
In that sense, copyrights are like a vine that will never stop growing to choke off our freedoms until we cut it off at the root. The DMCA, infinite extensions, billion dollar lawsiuts, are all just symptoms of a poor belief system - not the cause. So the efforts to find a "middle ground" on copyrights are a failure because they do not address the core issue. That contrary to copyrights, the right to copy and distribute creative works and knowledge is a right!
Like freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, the right to copy things is a right that exists above government. It is a moral right, it is an inherent right, it defines the very nature of the human condition. It is beyond politics and the petition of leaders.
In fact, the entire foundation of politics rests on the notion that it's better to fight wars with words than wars with bloodshed. But to copy things does not require coercion or viloence at all, the rules are not the same. We will not change the copyright situation by petitioning our leaders, or voting to change the system. No it can only be changed by defiance.
Defiance by holding the belief that people have rights, even if those rights appear contrary to the popular mob or to the system. Defiance, by shedding off the guilt and shame that those who try to impose copyrights impose on us and understanding that they are
Re:basis in law! (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, quite a few EULAs outside the United States are based in copyright law. Many countries' copyright traditions don't recognize an equivalent of 17 USC 117 [cornell.edu], which states that copying a program into RAM is not infringement; the owner of even an authorized copy needs special permission from the copyright owner to load it into RAM, and a EULA provides this permission.
Re:Irony abounds. (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO won't survive the IBM counter claim for sure.
and Part II, protest against patents as well (Score:3, Interesting)
This one is far more harsh, but I think makes my point just as well.
COPYRIGHTS AND PATENTS ARE THE SLAVERY OF THE INFORMATIOn AGE(Part II)
There seems to be this attitude that the suffering of slaves prior to 1850 was something that only happened back then. That it has nothing to do with now, that we are more civilized, more modern, more mature, and more sophisticated. With it comes the arrogance that what happened then, means nothing now, that what happened there has no value here, that the great torment and suffering back then can safely be ignored now as we blow off history and all the values that go with it in terms of understanding, freedom, markets, property rights, and the information age.
Surely anyone who claimed that there is no incentive go grow cotton without "niggers" on the plantation would be considered a barbaric. But if someone claims that there is no incentive to create intellectual and knowledge works without copyrights and patents, then society calls them enlightened. If someone had said that the great wealth of America rested on slavery as a property right and the plantation system, they were a foolish idiot. But if someone says that the great wealth of societies in the information age rests on "Intellectual Property", then they are called wise. Anyone who says that slavery was about property rights and not control, is a liar. However, if they say that copyrights and patents are not about control, but "Intellectual Property" then they are considered trustworthy. How about - if you don't like slavery - don't own slaves, and if you don't like copyrights no one forces you to buy those creations. How about - if you don't believe in slavery, you must be an anarchist, if you don't believe in copyrights and patents you must be communist. How about - you are a thief if you free slaves from the plantation, you are a thief when you copy someones "Intellectual Property".
So why are we spoon-feed these poor logical explanations over and over again? Because, like the rapist who drugs his victim and gently penetrates her, rather than beat her and tear into her where all the scars, blood, and bruises can be seen. Like the assassin who befriends and mis-places his victims heart medications, rather than pull out a rifle and pop a bullet in the head. Copyrights and patents are the pinnacle of quiet violence. So seemingly innocent, so seemingly civilized and friendly, so hard to see and identify any direct evil, any direct consequence. After all, what could be less harmless then providing an incentive to artists and inventors, right? But do they really promote art - or just promote works that have the most hype rather than the most meaning and educational value? Do they really help inventors, or do they hinder collaboration and sharing in a way that would put a police state to shame?
Perhaps the old lady has none to blame when her patented diabetes medication is too expensive to afford anymore. Who can the workers blame when the proprietary technology they bet their career on becomes obsolete and it becomes ever harder to relearn from scratch as they get older. Who can a child in Africa blame when they are dying of AIDS, and there are no generics to treat it! Who do we blame when researchers seeking a cure for cancer encounter massive obstacles to sharing there individual research for fear that their peers will get one up on them, get a key patent, and lock them out! Who do our nations students blame when tabloids are pennies on the dollar, but textbooks dollars on the page! Who do we blame for Hollywood culture being such a failure, and so strongly influencing society in their own failed image.
As people die because patented medicines are too costly and alternatives too sparse, and the needy go without, not because of genuine shortage, but because artificial human made restrictions. Our government who is the enemy of overt violence, has become the friend of quiet violence. Our government who has organized world wars to protect our freedoms, now promotes a world orde
Aahh, yes, the jack-ass (Score:5, Interesting)
The software license adopted by the GPL is called "copy left " by its authors. This is because the GPL has the effect of requiring free and open access to Linux (and other) software code and prohibits any proprietary use thereof. As a result, the GPL is exactly opposite in its effect from the "copy right " laws adopted by the US Congress and the European Union. - But, Darl, you can use GNU/Linux and other Free Software as much as you want. It is when you try to redistribute Free Software under a different licence, it is the moment when you violate the GPL - you violate a licence. GPL is your EULA if you will, only it does not affect your USAGE of Free Software in any way, only your redistribution of Free Software. You do know what a contract means, don't you?
In taking this position SCO has been attacked by the Free Software Foundation, Red Hat and many software developers who support their efforts to eliminate software patents and copyrights. Internet chat boards are filled with attacks against SCO, its management and its lawyers. Personal threats abound. At times the nature of these attacks is breathtaking - the emotions are obscuring the very clear and important legal issues SCO has raised. This is to be expected when the controversy concerns such deeply held beliefs. - Darl, when you try to STEAL people's copyrighted work, it is the moment when you start getting these kinds of reaction. At the moment when you decide to enslave the free, at the moment when you decide to take away something that belongs to everyone by the expressed permission of the copyright holder, at this moment you become an enemy. When you LIE, you become an enemy and an annoyance.
Despite the raw emotions, however, the issue is clear: do you support copyrights and ownership of intellectual property as envisioned by our elected officials in Congress and the European Union, or do you support "free" - as in free from ownership - intellectual property envisioned by the Free Software Foundation, Red Hat and others? There really is no middle ground. The future of the global economy hangs in the balance. - Darl, but it is you, who do not recognize the copyright, you do not want to recognize a contract for redistribution of Free Software that you enter, once you start redistributing Free Software. You are going against simple contract and copyright laws, nothing else.
The Free Software Foundation, Red Hat and other GPL advocates take the contrary position. The FSF and Red Hat believe that the progress of science is best advanced by eliminating the profit motive from software development and insuring free, unrestricted public access to software innovations. The Free Software Foundation was established for this purpose. The GPL implements this purpose. Red Hat speaks for a large community of software developers dedicated to this purpose. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has dramatically undercut this position with its guidance in Eldred in how to define the term "promote the Progress of Science and the useful arts..." under the Constitution. - Supreme Court is misguided at best and at worst it has a hand in the pie. What you call innovation, others call extortion. If a hundred programmers come up with an exactly same solution algorithm to a problem why should one of them be able to subdue the rest into paying royalties for something that must be free? An algorithm? It is bound to happen simply by the nature of mathematics - anyone familiar with math knows, the Pythagorus theorem could be discovered by many individuals simply because in math it is natural to find the most optimal solutions to problems, and the proven theorems are such solutions. Software is all about algorythms and thus it is about the most optimal solutions, and these solutions can be expressed as theorems. Such ideas must be free for everyone to use, since they are the tools, the building blocks that we use in order to solve our real life problems. If we are not allowed to free
Favorite quote (Score:2, Interesting)
I was not aware that the US Congress passed judgment on its laws.
The document creators (Score:5, Interesting)
And there I was hoping Darl at least understood his position well enough to write garbage like this by himself. Does Darl even exist, or is he like the Wizzard Oz, a non-existant entity? Just kidding. He may become a non-existant entity after the court-room is done with him, though
Re:Don't they......they don't..... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm assuming that the judge will simply get angry at the foot-dragging and set some type of time-table for discovery to move forward. If SCO still doesn't produce anything by the end of the timeline, the judge might set another hearing to accept motions on behalf of dissmissal.
All in all, Darl's right. It's gonna be 18 months till this case gets thrown out (even over failure to produce during discovery)....I think they (SCO) will stretch this out that long before they get caught empty handed.
An open letter TO Darl McBride (Score:5, Interesting)
I've got to tip my hat to you. It's rare that you can find someone so outspoken and with such an interesting interpretation of reality who is also able to elicit such vociferous and multitudinous responses from your friends and (more often) your enemies. Really, for your family's sake at least, I feel better knowing that when someone finally points out that the emperor has no clothes, you'll have no problems finding employment in the afternoon talk show circuit.
In the months since you've launched your Sisyphean attack on Linux and Open Source Software in general I've come to regard you with something of a grudging affinity. Like that crazy uncle you hope never shows up for family events but then miss terribly when he's not there, you've become a constant ache that I just know I'm going to miss. Who else can I count on to inspire such fits of laughter and frothing rage?
It's with this new found amiability towards you that I make the following offer. I know you've been wanting someone to buy up The SCO Group and in the interests of not seeing you completely financially devastated, I'd like to buy your company. I'd like to offer you a one crisp United States dollar bill for the entirety of The SCO Group. You may find the amount a little less than you'd hoped for, but as Homer Simpson was once counseled (if I may paraphrase) "I think you should take it."
You see I've been both amused, enraged, and more recently dismayed as the scope of your intellectual property land grab expands. I finally decided that some sort of intervention was necessary after I read your latest diatribe in which you both demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of intellectual property law as well as the GPL and made thinly veiled threats to employ the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to further expand your legal assault against Linux. Darl, have you even read the DMCA? Do you know what it is or says? Were you aware that you've got to actually demonstrate you've got copyright in something that's been infringed before you can even open that can of worms?
I'm sure it may have slipped your mind what with all the heavy composition you've apparently been engaged in, but although you've talked a lot about your lawsuits with IBM and RedHat, you haven't actually won either of them yet. As such, that presents a real problem for your DMCA strategy because so far you've been unable to demonstrate an intellectual property interest of The SCO Group that's been infringed in any way. Sort of putting the cart before the horse aren't we?
Surely it's also obvious to you now that you've painted yourself into a corner with respect to the GNU Public License (GPL)? If you prevail and the GPL is declared invalid, as a distributor of many works (including Linux) which were formerly licensed under the GPL, The SCO Group would appear to be guilty of copyright infringement on a rather unprecedented scale. (Without the GPL Darl you can't distribute Linux or Samba.) If you fail, and the GPL is valid, you've released all your supposedly infringed works into the Open Source community under terms where you lose all ability to make infringement claims on pretty much any IP grounds. In which case any value of any intellectual property left in the corpses of your versions of Unix is pretty much gone.
So please, I urge you, it's time to stop the madness. Take me up on my offer, let Mr. Boise have his cut of my buyout, and walk away a winner Darl. I'm pretty sure it's the best offer you're going to get.
Your friend,
Specter
Re:deconstucting the constitution (Score:4, Interesting)
His statement was neither libel nor slander. It was a twisting of the truth into something that, while still true, misrepresents intention.
The FSF (and others) believe that progress is made through openness, just as Darl (and his other brother Darl) says. But, they are not trying to "undermine" all copyright and patents-- just those relating to information. And, "undermine" is a loaded word. Rather, the FSF appears to be trying to modify the current system into something that does not allow the hoarding of information.
Me, I see that most of the really hard scientific progress was done in the open, when people were free to use ideas and concepts without threat of litigation. So, I agree with the FSF.
But, YMMV, of course.
Re:deconstucting the constitution (Score:5, Interesting)
So my summary of what Darl of SCO is saying is this:
The GPL is unconstitutional, because the GPL allows people to limit the use and distribution of their writings and discoveries to only those people who do not intent to use copyright or patent law to subdue it.
So, basically, Darl of SCO is saying that he realizes that SCO has distributed Linux under GPL after he knew about what he claims as his infringement of SCO IP. And because that distribution would negate all his claims of infringed IP, he has no other choice but to dispute the legality of the GPL. Well, maybe he doesn't realize that, but at least his lawyers did.
The only other alternative, accepting to have knowingly broken the terms of the GPL license by distributing GPL-licensed software while not agreeing with the terms of the license would not make sense, and according to the law of Chewbacca defense lead to immediate aquittal of his case.
BTW: Who else confuses WindRiver and WinDriver?
Linux is NOT AMERICAN (Score:2, Interesting)
Nothing really new (Score:3, Interesting)
And of course that's not the case - RedHat (the case he presents) actually makes profit selling GPLed software and associated tech support.
Basically, he is saying - I don't like the GPL, therefore I feel free to violate it, and with it, relevant copyright laws. I said it before and I'll say it again - Mr. McBride, by continuing to distribute and sell Linux without any authorization, you are continuing to violate the same copyright laws you are "fighting" so hard to defend. That's a criminal violation these days.
Can I arbitrarily declare that I feel the Microsoft Shared Source or even regular EULA violates the U.S. Constitution and the spirit of copyright laws and start distributing bootleg Windows XP and 2003 server ISOs? Are you kidding me? I'd have FBI at my door in no time. So should SCO!
What else do the Feds need? Where are the criminal copyright prosecutors that
More Memorable Quotes from Darl McLies (Score:2, Interesting)
Eliminate software patents? Yes. Eliminate software copyrights? not in this lifetime. I don't work for Redhat, but any moron can see that this quote is a complete mischaracterizations of redhat's views found in the linked article.
First Markets should, THEN Courts should Decide (Score:5, Interesting)
When McBride argues about the legal underpinnings and defending it by court decisions, he is backward looking. Courts are restricted to only looking at the past and existing laws and legislations in making decisions.
On the temporal scale the Judiciary has control over the past. The legislature is forward looking and has control over the future. So, any law that the legislature passes now, will become the touchstone by which the courts will judge later. And on the temporal Scale the Executive has control over the present. I beleive in this case, the Execution should be done by the Market forces, rather than by an arm of the Government. (And SCO must be executed too.)
Based on the results of the market forces, the legislature should then frame "forward looking legislations" that then become the laws which the courts must address. Currently, and in all the arguements that McBride advances, the fact is that the courts were restricted to INTERPRETING "Progress of Science and useful Arts" in the LEGAL sense only - obviously the legal framework is vvery restrictive in identifying what really "Progress" means, and is it must be understood that the courts had their hands toed behind their backs - thier's is a legal interpretation of Progress and not a broader economic, social, cultural, and political meaning of Progress.
The meat of my comment is above - the rest of the comment is just trying to build my case more ...
The global economy is not hanging in the balance, waiting breathlessly for SCO/McBride to vulturize millions so the "global economy" can breathe a sigh of relief. This is just another bluster from the McBride. McBride is nothing but a fly on the wall in terms of the current efforts and "real work" that are really advancing the state of the global economy. I highlight this McBride quote, because it captures bluster of the rest of his sophomoric argument.
It is interesting that he talks about the "legal underpinnings" being sound. If tomorrow the Legislature passes a law (legislations are forward looking), that makes it clear that there is no room for interopretation, and SCO is wrong and stupid, that will be the easy end to the SCO/McBride Extortion story. Like McBride says " Internet chat boards are filled with attacks against SCO, its management and its lawyers," and I think they are filled with attacks for a good reason. And since the chatboarders are also voters, it would be possible for them to choose the right representatives, who would go and legislate, and then carry the legal "attacks" on SCO rather than just have flame wars.
Re:Closed Letter -- pedantic spell checking is fun (Score:5, Interesting)
'ye shalt' is then wrong. 'thou shalt'
'readeth' is not a proper conjugation, simply use 'read'.
'ye hearts' should be 'thy heart dost'
'I am using ye' => 'I be using the'
'hast thou hearest' => 'hast thou not heard'
'Remindest' is an improper combining of dost. Drop the do, and add an apostrophe: Remind'st
'ones'? just 'one' will do.
Most humbly, I remain _thy_ servant...
Crafty scheme: (Score:3, Interesting)
- Post some incendiary drivel about the GPL on the corporate website, hoping to lure the Slashdot crowd.
- Leave if up overnight, and check the logs next morning, quivering with anticipation.
- Pick through the catch for stuff like:
- Ooh! A Linux user agent! Transfer it to the hit list.
- Send out the DMCA subpoenas
...
Well, you know the rest. The RIAA wrote the refrain to that song.Re:Don't they (Score:5, Interesting)
That is a gross oversimplification but it's basically what it boils down to. Based on the results of tomorrow's hearing, the parties will probably be required to return to court in a month or two to see if they've followed the court's orders.
So you're just a bit off on your understanding of discovery. Tomorrow's hearing is not the end of the discovery process; basically, it's a chance for the two sides and the magistrate judge to assess how much progress has been made in discovery so far and what still needs to be done.
Re:Irony abounds. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Amusing quote (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:deconstucting the constitution (Score:5, Interesting)
You're missing an essemtial part of Darl's reasoning. Darl believes his company owns the rights to Unix and to all derivative works. If true, then all the Linux kernel developers have been extending and improving a derivative of the original Unix (never mind that Linus started from scratch). Not only that, they've been doing it without permission of the copyright holder and it doesn't matter that these derivatives are GPL'd because they're illegal, unauthorized copies.
Note: I'm not supporting Darl, I'm just trying to show that he could very well be ignoring the possibility of legal retaliation by the kernel developers simply because he believes they don't have a leg to stand on.
Excuse me (Score:3, Interesting)
I am interested to know this.
My letter to SCO (Score:3, Interesting)
Does SCO have any idea what this actually sounds like to serious professionals in the industry? People who were worried are now simply shaking their heads, and this letter claiming that the GPL is somehow against copyrights is simply misleading. Even I know that. I can read the GPL, and what I see, and what most lawyers will probably see is that the GPL is a software licence. It in no way damages copyrights as these are kept by the individual authors. It also has nothing to do with software patents. Does SCO actually know that even if the GPL were to be deemed invalid that it would make itself open to thousands of claims of copyright abuse by all the open source developers whose software SCO has distributed/is distributing?
I find this whole matter to be irritating. Rest assured that I will never recommend SCO software in any form, as SCO seems highly irresponsable at best.
What a joke. SCO is simply amazing in its childish fantasies.
Re:Irony abounds. (Score:5, Interesting)
They have stated that "one anonymous Fortune 1000 company" has bought a license and I deeply suspect it's either Microsoft or that holding firm (the Canopy group IIRC)
There are only 2 groups here:
Profit Motive (Score:5, Interesting)
Just because the constitution defined copyright to help protect profit motives and thus speed along innovation, that does not mean we cannot use copyright law in a different way.
I'd like to direct Darl McBride to the ninth ammendment to the constitution of the United States of America. To paraphrase, it basically means that if something hasn't been outlawed, it's legal. Or in other words, nothing is illegal until it has been outlawed. When it comes to using copyright in a different way, that means that there's no law saying that we cannot use an existing law in a way that it wasn't intended (so long as that doesn't break any existing laws).
Yeah, it's a rather weak legal point, but if that's what you're screaming, then you've probably missed my larger point. Every (weak and rambling) point that the article puts forth can be countered by hundreds of examples that prove that this new use of copyright law fits in the mold of what the founding fathers intended. Innovation is happening under this model, the masses have found a way to be involved and to contribute to OSS and the greater good is being served every step of the way. To anyone who cannot see that, I would respectfully question their motives and/or their awareness of temporal reality.
-Chuck
Darl Reply (Score:3, Interesting)
The Eldred case does not really apply here, as Eldred was contesting the authority of Congress to extend copyright, sadly rejected. Even so, profit can be defined in many ways, and Open Source developers do profit from the work that they put into their software. The normal method of profit is that they are able to consult or offer support contracts on the basis of their proven skill in software development. The more widely used the software, the more in demand their services. In addition, authors gain by improved status and recognition both inside and outside the community.
In recent letters published on Groklaw [groklaw.net], it has been established that employees and officers of SCO were aware that their developers were actively assisting and contributing to all the projects now under dispute, including the parts under dispute with IBM. Given this tacit approval, one cannot now change your mind and withdraw those efforts.
Again in your letter, you have made the mistake of claiming it is your intellectual property that is being distributed. The weight of evidence now shows that any intellectual property owned by you has been released to the public domain with your knowledge, or was never your property in the first place. You have little grounds for claiming that any intellectual property truly owned by you is in Linux or any other Open Source software. All claims you have made so far have been proven to be untrue.
As I understand it, the offer still stands; release all files which you claim is your intellectual property, and if proven, it would be withdrawn from Linux. We fail to see what problems you have with releasing those files, since after all, you are claiming that they are already in Linux; thus any confidentiality has already been lost.
Re:deconstucting the constitution (Score:3, Interesting)
Nowhere do I recall ever reading anything on compensation
I'd argue that GPL-software authors are compensated, in the form of access to subsequent code based on the original work. So even if SCO claims software must require payment to be protected, GPL software does that.
McBride takes on two contradictory positions regarding the GPL: On the one hand, the free-ness of GPL software undermines proprietary-code business models, so in that regard he wants the court to implement a price support (the price of software can't converge to "free").
On the other, he's also arguing that the requirement of making code modifications publicly available is too high a price to pay to use GPL software, so he also wants a price ceiling (the price can't go so high that I have to give up my precious code mods).
Added together, what he really wants is his own personal Welfare program: "We could write our own software, but ours isn't as good as theirs. They'll let us use theirs, but we're not willing to pay their price. We ask the court to declare that in this instance the free market has failed by succeeding, and that the court give us the exclusive rights to all their work, so that we may profit from selling the best available product without incurring the trouble and expense of developing it ourselves, or having to compete with others - including those who wrote most of it in the first place - who might do it more efficiently than we can."
Man, what chutzpah. Most folks are ashamed to bum a cigarette from a stranger, and look at that action. This is taking the long-con to a new level - it's legal 3-card Monte and the courts are his subway platform, and every time it looks like he believes in the game himself his stock goes up; he never even has to stop shuffling the cards and let the rube pick. You have to give it up for quality. I am in awe.
Let's say, they get their wish (Score:3, Interesting)
What is going to happen?
Do we start over? Do we look for a different 'open source' project? They're trying to get BSD and Linux taken out of the server arena, and Darl doesn't care how much FUD he's got to spread or how thick it's spread up.
If the GPL's ruled invalid...then what?
I'm having a hard time fathoming anything like that happening. I'd be looking for a country that has less draconian laws (PATRIOT, DMCA, profit by legislation being the few), and moving there. That much I know for sure.
GPL is "Unamerican" (Score:2, Interesting)
Letter is a smokescreen for stock manipulation (Score:5, Interesting)
I reckon this is just a ruse to get their stock price as high as possible before they get their ass handed to them later today and it crashes through the floor.
If GPL==invalid, then isn't every EULA==invalid? (Score:2, Interesting)
Pedantic archaic-grammar-checking is more fun! (Score:3, Interesting)
ye == the. y is a rune, pronounced like 'th'
You're right about the thorn (looks like /. doesn't support weird HTML character entities, or I'd show you; it's þ) being "th", and many people mistaking it for a "y" in "the". However, "ye" is also a plural/formal form of the word "you." Anyone who's taken French, or German, will understand when I say it's like "vous", or "ihr". It's a little more complicated than that, though, since it's only nominative: that is, you can say "Can ye come to me?" but not "I'm coming to ye." (For that, you want "you"--yes, it really was a word back then!)
'ye shalt' is then wrong. 'thou shalt'
Because of what I just said, "ye shalt" is not wrong for the reason you state. However, it is still wrong, for the following reason: forms like "shalt," "art," "dost" and such are only for the second-person singular familiar: that is, "thou." (And, of course, in the analog position to "you" we have "thee") But also, like I said, it's the familiar form, not, as many today incorrectly believe, the formal. So in a letter to someone you don't know, you should use "ye" and "you," not "thou" and "thee." (But I'll ignore that distinction for the remainder of the corrections)
'readeth' is not a proper conjugation, simply use 'read'.
'ye hearts' should be 'thy heart dost'
'I am using ye' => 'I be using the'
You're correct about "readeth;" that is the third-person singular form (eg, "he readeth," "she readeth," "it readeth"). You're also right about "thy heart dost [bleed]." As someone else pointed out, however, "I be using the" is weird pirate-talk*. It should be "I am using an," just as it would be today.
'hast thou hearest' => 'hast thou not heard'
The "not" is unnecessary; it can just be "hast thou heard." (the "not" just makes it more poetic, or something)
'Remindest' is an improper combining of dost. Drop the do, and add an apostrophe: Remind'st
'ones'? just 'one' will do.
As I said before, the forms ending in "-st" or "-est" are second-person singular familiar. I'm really not sure what the original poster's intent in this part was; I suspect it should be something more like "I remind thee," but the desire to obfuscate overcame them, and this dreck came out. It could also be "Remind yourselves," or, "It remindeth me" (though I'm not entirely sure about "remindeth").
Most humbly, I remain _thy_ servant...
Given that they're using the informal forms throughout, yes. However, formally and correctly it would indeed be "your servant."
Misuse of archaic language is one of my pet peeves.
Dan Aris
* As a matter of fact, what we tend to think of as "pirate-talk" is in actuality the dialect spoken in the furthest southwest of England, in Cornwall. A lot of smugglers operated there, because of the nature of the coastline. And please forgive me if I've gotten details wrong; I'm always happy to be corrected by someone who knows what they're talking about.
my open reply to SCO's letter. . . (Score:3, Interesting)
** Heller