SCO Lobbying Congress Against Open Code 907
An anonymous reader writes "Along with suing Novell - it was announced today that SCO has been lobbying Congress about the horrifying ways that Linux and the rest of open source software saves users money, allows others to use the software anyway they see fit and 'gasp' causes SCO to not make as much money as they would like. Along with all of the usual FUD. OSAIA has the details (as well as a rebuke)." Darl's words will seem pretty transparent, even funny, to anyone aware of the widespread acceptance and use of Free / Open Source software (by individuals, governments, non-profits, and even companies like SCO) -- but you might have to point this out to your servants in Congress.
Lobbying Impact (Score:3, Insightful)
SCO will have a major impact I'm sure. They can make their political contributions in stock options.
all I have to say is... (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that what he is saying?
One point was correct (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, yes, it does. That is only because up until now we have been talking about what amounts to a closed protectionist system via closed formats, software patents etc. Welcome to the free market. That's not to say that the US position in the software industry won't be very competitive, merely that they'll actually have to compete with everyone else on a level playing field.
Is he arguing that free markets are against US ideology? Interesting take - might even be true from the point of view of some elements of congress.
Jedidiah.
The Beginning of the End for SCO (Score:5, Insightful)
How they can hope to do this in the face of much better funded and more experienced lobbyists who are opposed to them is a mystery.
I think it's also a sign that their whole strategy is running out of steam.
Obligatory Microsoft Comment. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lobbying Impact (Score:5, Insightful)
It stops short of claiming the GPL is the communist revival, but it might as well have.
I'd like to see us respond. We need someone who might make sense to these people. Some rich american. An IBM exec would do the trick. The usual rants from FSF, GNU or EFF people aint gonna help us here.
Re:Lobbying Impact (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:In other words? (Score:2, Insightful)
Welcome to the fun fun world of fascism! (Score:2, Insightful)
What's the difference? Simple.
Right to try to make money: "I'm going to make a product, offer it for sale. What I make from selling it, minus any taxes, expenses in making the product, and employee salaries is mine to keep."
Right to make money: "If I don't make $x in profits, it's all open sources fault! So I'll sue everyone who makes it, everyone who defends it, and everyone who even thinks about it, because it's my right to make $x, and no one can take that away from me, no matter how unsellable my product is!"
The first argument is capitalism.
The second is fascism.
Santa Cruz uber alles, Darl?
Maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
What the hell were the UNIX companies doing during that time? They could have remained competitive. They could have kept up with the times. They could have written the GUI apps that their users wanted. They could have incorporated new coding techniques into their code bases. They could have kept the desktop market. If an unpaid rabble of amateurs could do it, why couldn't these companies, collectively worth billions of dollars? Nevermind Apple, merrily rubbing their faces in how easy it is for a for-profit company to do exactly the same thing.
If I were a shareholder of the big UNIX companies, upper management would have a lot of 'splaining to do.
Be afraid, be very afraid... (Score:2, Insightful)
Great way to ditch your old Caldera CD (Score:5, Insightful)
It might be worth its bucks after all.
No More Complacency (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a bit less faith in the average politician's grasp of these issues, though, particularly with McBride going out of his way to spout about "national security" and suchlike. Like any good showman, he knows his audience.
I'll need to spend a day or two getting the tone and wording just right (polite, reasoned, and respectful), but my Senators and Representatives will be receiving an alternative viewpoint by next week.
Well, maybe more than one...
Re:Is lying to Congress illegal? (Score:3, Insightful)
-No, if it's about an invasion of another country!
-Yes, if its about the "invasion" of an intern.
Who gains if US bans FOSS? (Score:5, Insightful)
That giant sucking sound that was in the news a few years ago (about NAFTA) would be back, but this time, it would be real and it would be all the software and services jobs going to India, China, etc., maybe even Europe. Anywhere that was not so stupid as to ban FOSS.
Since when ... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a free market. If you get things just right, you are free to make tons of money and get filthy rich. (Microsoft) And if you get it wrong, you are free to go the way of the dodo bird and free up capital for those who have a better idea.
Re:Lobbying Impact (Score:5, Insightful)
They think that... (Score:5, Insightful)
I dunno, I think the huge US corporations pose a greater threat.
Re:In other words? (Score:2, Insightful)
Congress WILL enact stupid legislation if it will keep large corporations (with good donation records) in business, even if it means flying in the face of reality.
Then again, SCO is not such a corporation. But Microsoft is.
They trying to get the Feds to buy licenses! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In other words? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you read the pdf he repeats over and over that the free products are only valuable because they stole from SCO.
The first couple times he says "in our opinion" and "we believe" regarding the origin of the value of free software, but by the end he is in full rant mode and outright stating that North Korea has received valuable stolen IP via Linux.
Kind of surprised the lawyers have not muzzled that moron yet.
Frankly, this is scary (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, seriously. You can scoff at it all you like, but this is *the most* likely way that SCO will win.
I think it is very important for each and everyone to take 10 minutes to write your congressman/woman about why Open Source is important and why you feel strongly that they do *not* vote for any bills limiting open licensing.
Frankly, money talks, especially in Congress. And although SCO isn't wealthy by any stretch, they do have more money than you.
Their right (Score:4, Insightful)
Companies based on Open source software are just not going to be as profitable as proprietary software companies with a lock on the market. If they try to be, someone will come along and do it cheaper and just as well.
Important Part (Score:2, Insightful)
--Stephen
Taking a page from Groklaw... (Score:2, Insightful)
"Red Hat has agressively lobbied Congress to eliminate software patents and copyrights. (see http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html [redhat.com])."
is demonstrably a lie. If you follow the link Darl provides, you find no mention of copyright (ok, except the copyright notice at the bottom of the page =p).But! In the interest of fairness I hit Google to see if I could find any statement from RH that'd support Darl's quote. I found nothing, but maybe you can turn something up? If not, it's a pretty good weakness to point out...
His logic is soooo flawed. (Score:2, Insightful)
SCO has the same mis-interpretations of the GPL, where the term free, to them, means no money. Their whole arguement appears to be based on the incorrect interpretation.
The GPL, to the best of my knowledge, allows for source code to be freed, and all subsequent products based on that source code be freed as well. It does not, however, preclude any company from using that code in a product, charging for said product, and, God forbid, make a profit from that product.
Heck, it doesn't forbid private companies from writing add-ons and charging for those, and they aren't required to license the new code with the GPL.
Darl's logic is so flawed and full of holes that you could drive a truck through it. I have to give him credit though, he uses all of the right FUD-words on our congressman. This is the saddest part, as most legislators, like equity traders, don't do enough research on the issues and pass bad laws.
Re:Is lying to Congress illegal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Review the testimony of Martha Stewart and you would think so...
Review the testimony of Ken Lay and you would think not...
My take is that it doesn't matter what you say. They do what the lobbyist pay them to do...
Fight this with private property arguments (Score:5, Insightful)
Although some slashdotters may diagree with the underlying premise, the way to fight this is by making a private property argument.
A developer who writes a piece of software, like any author, "owns" his work. It is the fundamental right of every American to dispose of their own property however they wish. This includes the right to give it away.
McBride argues that congress should essentially sieze any property that is not being used for "conventional" economic gain. This is quite a socialist agenda, and regardless would be prohibited by the fifth amendment of the Constitution.
Property arguments are very persuasive in the halls of power, and given this argument no congressmen would give Darl the time of day.
Re:No More Complacency (Score:2, Insightful)
BTW, it appears that SCO didn't quite do enough research on the proper honorifics [cftech.com] to use for a letter (which I hope we would at least use).
Re:One point was correct (Score:3, Insightful)
All hail the ability of America to produce proprietary software... I mean, pay someone to produce proprietary software!
Advance, Australia Fair (Score:2, Insightful)
And India.
And Germany.
It won't just be jobs that disappear from the US: it'll be business, trade, and a lot of skilled people.
If the lobby succeeds, it will show just how bad and shortsighted the political system in this country has become.
Re:Lobbying Impact (Score:5, Insightful)
- code that e.g. Andrew Tridgell writes for Samba cannot possibly be owned by SCO
- Samba code is released under the GPL. The GPL says, in effect, "I'm allowing you to use this code under a certain set of conditions". If the GPL is invalid, then basic copyright law will be in effect
- SCO distributes Samba code, presumably under the GPL. I'm guessing that SCO hasn't negotiated a separate agreement with the Samba guys to distribute their code under some non-GPL arrangement
- if SCO succeeds in getting the GPL rendered invalid (and that is unlikely since, in this example, it's the Samba guys saying "I'm gonna give you extra rights to use this provided you stick to these conditions..." which is a very common approach to licencing), then SCO is simply breaking basic copyright law in distributing Samba
In other words, if the GPL is valid, then SCO has no case. If the GPL is invalid, then SCO is breaking the copyright of lots of individual copyright holders. Either way, they lose
This is surreal (Score:3, Insightful)
The salvation army frequently uses volunteer labor to help out with social problems and in doing so competes with the US governments established social services programs. These services our designed by our professional in Washington. The Salvation Army is essentially "dumping" their product for free and it will create an unstable situation that could cause our entire social services to collapse.
Also, I hear that the Salvation Army exports these services to foriegn countries and let me inform you that not all these counties that the Salvation Army deals with are those we classify as our friends.
We believe that you should be informed of these issues and the impact they have on the institutions we hold dear.
An eye opener, for sure. (Score:2, Insightful)
How do insane laws like the DMCA go into effect? Big money lobbies for it. Folks, if you are inclined against SCO at all, it is very important to get a letter off to your representatives in Congress. The EFF [eff.org] has a good page to help you write a letter. If no voice opposes SCO in this then they (and Microsoft) just might get their way. And if they do, what then?
An outcry then would be too late. OSS would be ghettoized. IBM's business model would shift to fit the new environment and OSS's colossus of an ally would vanish.
This must end now. I am writing my congresspeople. They're OUR civil servants. WE are their bosses. They really ought to know what we want them to do with this.
Re:In other words? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to flame, but that's because IE kicked the shit out of the other browsers (Netscape, in particular), because Microsoft threatened to kick the shit out of any computer maker/distributor that didn't leave IE as the default and, iirc, sometimes even if they just chose to install Netscape side-by-side.
It's not about the product in that case, it's that Microsoft used illegal tactics to force its success rather than just competing fairly. Effectively, SCO is whining to Congress because the product is superior, that's all.
The RIAA vs. SCO (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA has a decent point... their product IS being illegally bootlegged. No matter how "illegal" you feel this action is, you cannot deny that it is.
You've missed the whole point of the RIAA's panic. They have no objection to people hearing music from bands they control for free--heck, they even pay to get them played on radio stations, in movies, etc. That whole line is sham/FUD--even they know that file sharing actually promotes CD sales.
The reason file sharing scares them so is that it lets people hear music from bands that they don't control. It's exactly the same problem MS/SCO has: their market share is being threatened by outsiders who can survive on much less than they can (see "The Innovator's Dilema" for a detailed explanation of the problem) by cutting them out of the equation.
And they have hit upon the same solution: Take advantage of the market's ignorance to claim that they are only trying to protect "their" property when in fact they are trying to destroy someone else's.
-- MarkusQ
P.S. I have a toddler and it is amazing how much the corporate world's view of "Market Rights" resembles a toddler's view of "Toy Rights"--e.g., I want it, I was playting with it, it's mine, and I will hurt anyone who tries to say otherwise.
When Speaking to your Representative (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember, find ways Open Source directly effects the politician and they will be more likely to listen, or tell them how voting against it will cause people to be out of work. They hate that just as much.
Right to profit? (Score:3, Insightful)
SCO argues that the authority of Congress under the U.S. Constitution to "promote the Progress of Science and the useful arts..." inherently includes a profit motive, and that protection for this profit motive includes a Constitutional dimension.
There it is, in writing. SCO is claiming the Constitution implies a right to profit. One twist of bad logic later, and you get the concept that only those making profit have a right to intellectual property. This idea, even more than the attack on FOSS, is extremely dangerous.
Re:Since when ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, I sympathize with the fact that it is sooo easy to copy music now and that certainly creates problems for them. I don't dispute that it is illegal. It is, and I have paid for all of my music. Having said that, I would buy a lot more music if it were cheaper and if it were better. It bothers me when a CD costs more than a DVD. It bothers me when that overpriced CD has one good song and the rest is crap. I'll just go without the music. That is where they are losing their sales. But if they blame their business problems on piracy, they can get Uncle Sam to beat on some 12 year old.
Re:Need good, solid, points of rebuttal (Score:5, Insightful)
1. While the profit motive may be recognized by the Supreme Court as "the best way to advance public welfare through the talents of authors and inventors" (Eldred v. Ashcroft), it is not the only one. The very existance of Open Source software demonstrates that motives other than profit can produce a public benefit and proliferation of knowledge.
2. The so-called "viral" provisions in the GPL that require any derivitive software to be governed by the same license is perfectly consistent with U.S. Copyright laws. Many software source licenses contain similar provisions regarding derivitive works. The SCO case against IBM is partially built on such a derivitive work provision.
3. The GPL, like all software licenses, defines the terms under which the software may be used. If someone doesn't like the terms, then they should not use the software. They can develop their own.
4. The GPL does not require that the software be given away for zero cost, and many proprietary software products exist that make use of (but are not derived from) Open Source software.
Anyone got some more? We need to address the national security FUD too. Let's build a list here!
Lying is only illegal if partisan lines are crossd (Score:5, Insightful)
It's far simpler than that.
If you are a Republican and you lie to a Democratic congress, you are breaking the law (c.f "Iran-Contra").
If you are a Democrat and you lie to a Republican congress, you are breaking the law (c.f. "I did not have sex with that woman").
If you are a Republican and you lie to a Republican congress, you get a standing ovation (c.f. the "State of the Union" address 2002, 2003, 2004).
If you are a Democrat and you lie to a Democratic congress, you may or may not get a standing ovation, but you certainly won't get into trouble.
You will note that this is orthogonal to what precisely it is you are lying about. Arms supplied to Pro-US Central American terrorists in order to arm and pay off Anti-US Middle-Eastern Terrorists got Reagan into trouble with a Democratic congress, but lying about weapon's of mass destruction as a pretense to launching a preemptive war, contravening two centuries of US policy and philosophy, was of no concern to a Republican congress (while Clinton's picadellies in the Oval Office earned him an impeachment).
Re:Ah, the internet (Score:5, Insightful)
My question is, how does what American entities do affect you, and why do you care? Can entities from your country (not just NZ but any other) not compete against the American entities in your local markets?
When American companies are heavily subsidised by the US government, they are able to sell produce in other countries way below the production cost. Local economies, not benefitting from such protectionist support (since their government rarely has deep-enough pockets), are unable to compete, and are driven out of business. That is how American entities affect companies in other countries.
The US loves free trade, as long as free trade means "we can dump our products below cost in your markets, but if you try to do business in our markets, we'll slap tariffs over your product quicker than you can break wind."
How can it be possible.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft (Score:2, Insightful)
SCO: They can't give away linux for free.
Re:Their right (Score:5, Insightful)
- Companies based on selling commodity products are just not going to be as profitable as companies selling unique products. If they try to be, someone will come along and do it cheaper and just as well. Which is why Wal-Mart went out of business on...oh, wait.
- Companies based on delivering low-end basic services, like fast-food restaurants, are just not going to be as profitable as companies selling unique services, like fancy restaurants. If they try to be, someone will come along and do it cheaper and just as well. Which is why McDonald's went out of business on...huh, that example didn't work either.
Point is, there are many axes upon which firms can compete (brand, service level, price, etc.). Open source may hamper some of these axes, but so can other things (e.g., locating a high-end restaurant in a low-income neighborhood may be problematic), so there's no basis in making a general statement about business profitabliity.Re:One point was correct (Score:3, Insightful)
I make $40,000 a year in a major city and I can barely stay afloat. I used to make $70,000 and was doing well with a retirement plan and my own home. That's all gone now and all I can hope for is to keep working til I drop dead because I will not be able to save for retirement. I got lucky and sweet talked my way into health insurance (45 Million people in the US are uninsured and many more are underinsured...health care is god awful expensive). The idea that somehow Americans are greedy is a load of bull. We are getting squeezed from all sides. Hate our President, hate the greediest of companies that stomp all over people around the world, but don't take it out on the citizenry. We try the best we can, just like you.
By the way, my old job went to India.
I forcast this pre DMCA and it will likely happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps some forward looking companies are moving significant parts of their programming offshore just to avoid this possibility.
As in "American software? No this is INDIAN software, so the American export rules don't apply!".
I predicted something like this pre-DMCA, where American laws (like the DMCA) and American litigiousness would drive most of the software industry overseas. This was at least five years ago (and posted here on slashdot as well as USENET), and if I recall correctly I said something along the lines of "in five or ten years we will be decrying the loss of high-tech jobs to those overseas, bashing whatever up-and-coming country has usurped our technical lead, and wondering why all the money and jobs had left the US economy.
I didn't know it would be India (though I speculated India, China, or even Europe would be possibilities), and I didn't know it would happen via outsourcing, but I am unsurprised at the result.
And yes, I do think the actions of monopolists such as Microsoft and their litigious hired thugs, such as SCO, will drive the remnants of US software innovation overseas, just as the DMCA has already done to some degree (DVD player software and video encoding technologies developed in Europe) and just as the idiotic encryption policies did (gnupg and others are still developed overseas).
It is a very short step from being an "outsourcing" company for HP to becoming a foreign competitor of HP (perhaps using insider info garnered through previous outsourcing, but more likely simply exploiting the natural expertise gained from doing someone elses work for them and learning to do it better and cheaper than they can).
This is the decline of the American technology sector, and it is almost a picture perfect imitation of what happened to the American automobile industry. Instead of Shoddy Ford Pintos blowing up we have Shoddy Microsoft Windows contracting every bug and virus under the sun, and instead of Detroit protectionism we have the likes of SCO and Microsoft creating a ripe environment for a competitor.
That competitor is Free Software, and banning it in America will not make it go away at all. It will simply mean that America has no competative product, while every other nation on the planet does. Sianara American preeminence in software engineering.
Re:One point was correct (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, either you do a better job than them, and deserve what you earn, or you do the same level of job as them, at which point, welcome to the market rate. Is there some reason why someone in the tech industry should earn a lot of money? If there are a lot of people who all do an equally good job then surely the pay level will be determined by what those people are willing to work for. If you want to live in the US, with its relatively high cost of living then find yourself a market niche, or work for less. An awful lot of people live on $30,000 a year - what makes you special? An expensive college education? Then use said education to find yourself a better job. If that education only taught you how to be a code monkey - well, maybe it wasn't worth the cash you paid for it.
Why is it that so many people seem to think they have an intrinsic right to earn more than most people, even though they'll be doing the same work?
Jedidiah.
Oh, how I wish it were true... (Score:4, Insightful)
The scary thing is that SCO, no matter how wrong thier case may be, is more relevant now than they've been in years. The fact that SCO's execs know the language of finance, marketing and business makes them relevant, as that is the language that most of our representatives in Congress speak every day. The fact that thier parent company (The Canopy Group) is a well known investment house owned by a board of influential, respected, and well connected investors makes them relevant. And the fact that we live in a culture where very few people can see worth in something that has not been paid for makes SCO relevant.
Not everyone yet understands what Open Source is about, and not everyone who does understand Open Source views it as a "Good Thing(tm)". There are several reasons that the Open Source community should not be lulled into taking SCO's actions lightly, as the bigger picture that is being presented by this lobbying effort is that this dispute is not simply about a "breach of contract", nor is it simply a licensing dispute, but is more about a group of people that extends far beyond SCO and Microsoft that view the GPL and other Free Software licensing as a threat to thier way of life and thier controll over sections of the ecconomy.
To those of us who learned on Linux, and to those of us who have been using Linux for a very long time, Linux seems like an innocuous part of the computing landscape. But to the established software industry, (and to the publishing, media distribution, and entertainment industries) Linux and other Free and Open Source technologies are considered to be "Disruptive Technologies" that have the potential to change the landscape of "thier" portion of the economy.
Conspiracy theory.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Their lobbying arguements bare a striking similarity to another company's rhetoric, both in terms or content and keywords.
Like to guess who?
Do some research, Darl. (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, we have the standard "some believe the GPL is in violation of the Constitution". W00t. Way to get as vague as possible and to point out that really only SCO (and perhaps Microsoft) believe this (oddly enough, to their benefit as a company).
Second, SCO's constant misrepresentation of the Free Software Foundation and the Open Source community in general is very disturbing.
Funny that the FSF itself defines proprietary as software whose use, redistribution, or modification is restricted or prohibited [gnu.org]. I believe what Darl was trying to refer to was commercial software [gnu.org], which can easily derive profit and still be free. Damn, shot yourself in the foot there, eh Darl?
In reality, again, GPL'd software can derive profit from support contracts, installations, and the like. But nowhere in the GPL does it say that you should link in or otherwise include proprietary code; that's not the goal, the goal is to create BETTER code that does the same thing, and also happens to be free. Yes, perhaps it can "free" a source of income from a company which developed a proprietary alternative, but THAT'S BUSINESS, Darl. There's nothing in the constitution that can get you out of the fact that we live in a capitalist society and if you can't find a way to compete, get out of the business.
And then, of course, we get to SCO's main point of business, or "proof" that Open Source software is evil; code has been stolen from them and imported into Linux without authorization. For the last time, everyone is asking, WHAT code, and WHERE is it? We will replace it! There's a whole community ready to fix any wrongdoings inside Linux in the blink of an eye. Oh, but wait, telling that would be "freeing" you of your litigation profit stream. I apologize.
Free or low-cost [ed. contradicted yourself there] Open Source software, full of proprietary code
And a second contradiction to round out that paragraph.
Because of a number of reasons. First and foremost, if they have the superior software, they will continue to own the market. You think Adobe and Photoshop are suffering a lot due to The GIMP? Secondly, because "freeing" software doesn't mean stealing it, even though you blatantly infer that. If any new software is put into Linux, it's either already been released free by its ORIGINAL developer, or it's code that volunteers have created, all their own. There are no bad-faith copyright violations in Linux because nobody knew about SCO's IP "rights" in the first place, and we still don't!
Hehe... coming from SCO... hehehe.
The rest of it is BS, mostly (national security?), so I'll leave it at that. Really though, SCO should present something a bit more substantial if they want us to think they're anything more than moneygrubbing lawyers.
That's simple. (Score:4, Insightful)
Dear Senator/Representative:
While I have not read the letter from SCO disparaging the GPL (after all, this is Slashdot), let's discuss for a moment what the proprietary software market has done.
When you purchase Microsoft Office, your check for $350 goes to Redmond, Washington. Ditto for everyone else in your state who buys a Microsoft product.
When you pay a consultant to install OpenOffice for you, your money (probably) stays in your state.
If you would like your constituents' money to remain in your state, then you should support the GPL.
If you are a Senator/Representative from the state of Washington, well, tough luck.
I will emigrate, donate CAN$ to the revolution :) (Score:3, Insightful)
Not much could turn me into a revolutionary, but something like this just might.
I am generally quite content, living a comfortable lifestyle in a reasonably comfortable country, with a decent paying job, my toys [jean.nu], a nice home in a nice city, a woman I love, and just about anything else contentment requires (including that one important prerequisite, a measure of freedom). Any anger or annoyance I feel toward the world is easilly vented here or elsewhere online and purged from my system, after which I continue on just as reasonably content as before.
However, banning free software could seriously make me reconsider that (scratch the job, and with it likely the home and the plane. Take away the freedom and no amount of toys or perks will bring contentment again). Whether I would become a true scorched-earth revolutionary I doubt, but I would certainly sell the condo and the airplane, emigrate from this country, renounce my citizenship, and use my talents to enrich a nation more deserving than the United State's will have become if our leaders even seriously consider doing something like this.
And I mean it.
SCO = Microscoft. Call it like it is. (Score:1, Insightful)
The sooner you realize who is behind this FUD campaign the better.
If you can't be a abusive monopolist cause of some judge watching your ever move then just hire some troll company to do the abusing for you.
The American way. Problem is the Abusive Monopolist has almost unlimited funds and unlimited troll companies to do it's bidding for it.
Linus himself said he'd be glad when this SCO thing was over. Oh really? Sorry to tell you this but this is only the very beginning. Hasn't even started yet. Wait two years and look back at the calmer 2004 when there was only one Microscoft company in court.
The only way to slow down the inevitable is to start using one very big software's companies name in every sentence when describing companies like SCO. They bought in and it's there direction that SCO is pursuing.
This is still peace time, The war hasn't even started yet.
Re:Lobbying Impact (Score:2, Insightful)
Just to be clear, the RIAA and DCMA were passed and signed by Democratic controlled Congress and President. All politicians have their hand in the till. Not just the Republicans.
Re:So... VERY OT thread... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually he's not an embarrasement. He's a joke. There is something called "ex-communication" in the Mormon church. By going against the church teachings he is basically pushing himself into a position of facing this.
Oh and there are Temple recommends. Basically one of the questions for a church Temple recommend asks "Have you been honest with your fellow man?". This is just one of many questions that Daryl will face as he is grilled by his Bishop (original or extra crispy?). Since this is very public, I doubt he could lie and get away with it. I feel sorry for the guy. He basically proves that some people will do anything for money. Even sell his own soul
(Sorry for the OT.. read the article refered and couldn't let it alone)
Re:Ah, the internet (Score:2, Insightful)
What kind of absurdity is this? Seriously. The parent brings up a point that a corporation in the US (stereotypically portrayed as a nation where you can make assloads of money if you just work hard enough) goes crying to Congress because some other people somewhere else are beating the tar out of it. You are aware of the irony of the stated situation, are you not?
In summary, if other entities cannot compete with American entities, maybe those peoples should be looking within instead of without for reasons and solutions rather than attacking a system that actually gets results.
Hmm, right. Let's switch A for B for a second...
In summary, if [American] entities cannot compete with [other] entities, maybe those peoples should be looking within instead of without for reasons and solutions rather than attacking a system that actually gets results.
Sorta sounds like SCO's problem with Open Source... just a little. Maybe. Don't you think?
So basically the parent is arguing realistically using logic, and all you've got to rebut him is his four-dimensional coordinates in the spacetime continuum? Where I'm from, that's called attacking the messenger and not the message.
Pfeh.
Oh, just FYI, I'm an American citizen living in Los Angeles, California... so you're going to have to find some other false pretense to 'argue' against my post, if you so choose.
Hatred (Score:2, Insightful)
Does this intense, unrelenting hatred come from SCO or Darl McBride? No, I don't believe it does. SCO hasn't been especially hurt by OpenSource, and has even contributed signficiantly to the movement during their Caldera days. SCO Unix may compete directly with Linux, but so does HP-UX, AIX and Solaris, yet those OS's respective companies are embracing the OpenSource operating system, just as SCO once did. Obviously, SCO doesn't have a great deal to gain directly from eliminating OpenSource, not enough to make them so emotional about it.
I believe this hatred eminates from the only company with the means, the motive and the opportunity to disseminate this hatred (through SCO). I belive this hatred eminates from the fact that Linux and OpenSource is the only force standing in the way of this company's objective to dominate the world by owning everyone's data and controlling their computing experience. This raw ambition cannot be fulfilled successfully unless the only real computing alternative in the age of decline of propriety unixes is eliminated. This is a war not just about dominance of the computing world, but about infinitely diverging philosophies of building information technology. It is a war of almost religious overtones.
That hateful, vengeful entity can be none other than Microsoft. Microsoft is the only company in the world with the means (billions of dollars), the motive (absolute dominance of computing) and the opportunity (rapid convergence of computers and the entertainment, finance and other industries) to be guilty of this initiative.
IBM from LinuxWorld today (Score:3, Insightful)
Go to TheLinuxShow [thelinuxshow.com]webcast from LinuxWorld today and listen to segment 2 (Interview with IBM).
Then ask yourselves if IBM will let the little Piss Ant SCO put this in peril.
Not a chance
PS Use MPlayer [mplayerhq.hu] in Lieu of the horrid RealPlayer
Re:Lying is only illegal if partisan lines are cro (Score:3, Insightful)
"I did not have sex with that woman"
Yes, but compare the amount of money spent investigating matters related to the latter quote, and the congressional response to it, with the former quote. The reactions to each seem to have been inversely related to their importance, because Americans seem to care more about blowjobs than national security. (Heh.).
(Actually, for a while I thought Clinton should resign, because I thought the whole mess was generally indicative of mental instability and inability to be trusted - not the personality type I wanted controlling our nuclear arsenal. However, Oliver North, Caspar Weinberger, and others should still be in prison. Bush. . . wouldn't have even made it to Texas governor if he didn't have a famous name.)
Re:Lobbying Impact (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree, but that isn't what SCO is hoping.
SCO has argued both directly and indirectly that when the GPL is declared invalid, then any GPLed software will be in the public domain and not covered under ANY copyright protection.
As far as SCO's officers are concerned, they can use SAMBA or any other GPLed software however they want because its already in the public domain because the GPL is illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, and fattening.
SCO Group is a bunch of lying, grasping, petty intellectual property thieves. And like most petty people, they see everyone else as being like themselves, only worse.
For months I couldn't figure out if SCO Group's main problem was that their 'leaders' are terminally stupid or terminally greedy.
I finally realized that they are both.
Too easy... (Score:2, Insightful)
Mark my words. (Score:3, Insightful)
Head hurts, honestly, even a paranoid schizophrenic makes more sense that this insane "company"...
This has to be a hoax... (Score:3, Insightful)
But no-one seems to question its authenticity?
The least you'd expect from a news item ANYWHERE would be to quote the source.
Re:One point was correct (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides the fact that they've got a nice bunch of artificial protetctions set up for their position? Not really no. And in due course that may well change if India starts setting up it's own software shops rather than being sources of outsourcing - many of those fat US companies (well, fat managenment wise) will find themselves under all sorts of competitive pressure. They'll have the option of cutting executive salaries to compete, or desperately trying to outsource more and more and cut more lower level jobs. My guess is they'll shoose the latter - which will pretty much push the company into oblivion as the productive base that supports the huge well paid management evaporates. Time will tell. I'd be looking for jobs OUTSIDE the US right now.
Jedidiah.
what really frustrates me (Score:3, Insightful)
You have to admit... (Score:4, Insightful)
- It ties the "problem" to all the issues that either party is trying to make the focus of the presidential campaign.
- It truthfully identifies open-source software as "controversial"... which is true, but only because they (and Microsoft and a few others) are making it so.
- It describes the movement (OSS), identifies an I've-heard-of-that example to establish that it's real (Linux), and links them together as "Open Source Linux". (Like Communism and Russia became "Communist Russia".)
- It then ties the entire thing to one of the fathers of the movement (Stallman) and equates the whole of it with his ideology, which - as is typically the case of founding ideologues - is a bit more radical than bulk of those who (vaugely) follow in his wake. Like connecting any Communist state or Socialist party to Marx, or to Lenin.)
- Likewise, it disparages the GPL by referring to "copyleft", associating it with "leftists" and implying to those without a grasp of geek irony that it seeks to annihilate copyright rather than (in the minds of many advocates) balance it.
- It uses words like "abetted" and "scheme" with their sinister, criminal overtones.
- It even uses the "some believe" construct, which passes something that should be tagged "IMHO" as if it were a commonly-held viewpoint. "Some believe that the moon is made of cheese," is true... but so what?
- And for good measure, it tosses in SCO's unproven allegations about theft of code as if they were admissable evidence.
Joe McCarthy would have been proud to read this from the Senate floor.**That's my own bit of demagoguery.
The Danger of Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't laugh.. they can do it.. Regardless of how stupid it might be, or how impractical it would be to enforce.
This is an absolute disgrace (Score:2, Insightful)
A child of six could rebut evey single point made in this pathetic dross.
I sincerely hope the recipient reads it, checks up on it and tears the author a new arsehole for wasting his time.
Re:Lobbying Impact (Score:5, Insightful)
As has been pointed out earlier, SCO's position here is that any GPLed software, if the GPL is declared invalid, would be released to the public domain. They want "free as in we can grab it and sell it for money" software. Free as in, you do the work, they take the profit and give you zilch, software. Darl and company doesn't just want IBM to give them billions, and every Linux user worldwide to give them $699. They want Linux, the FSF, and every single free software project on Earth dead and ruined. The reason we hackers are so opposed, in viscrial and emotional ways, to SCO's attack is because they are attempting to destroy what we've spent 20 years building.
Lets not forget (Score:3, Insightful)
The US needs to be on the bus ASAP IMHO. If anything threatens the US economy its guys like this who use money, influence and dirty tricks to maintain the status quo. It didnt work for the British Empire did it?
Re:Lobbying Impact (Score:1, Insightful)
Many governments have already embraced open-source, the U.S. will only further alienate the rest of the world and destroy its own I.T. industry if it goes ahead on a line like this.
I can guarantee that *I* will never bow before SCO, and I matter:
I'm a geek, and I influence the products and platforms my company decides to develop and the battle is already lost, SCO. I will NEVER buy or support your product, you don't even exist.
And as far as Windows goes, I am doing everything that I can to get everyone I can OFF of it.
It's like them damned Beatles, isn't it, SCO? You tried burning their records and outlawing them, but the people they mattered to had a stronger will.
So shall it be with open-source.
You can't force us to use anything we don't want.
So step back, beyatch.
Amateurish mistake (Score:1, Insightful)
From Darl's letter to the congressmen:
> Those who designed the GPL readily admit that they created this license to have the effect of "freeing" software -- taking it out of the realm of copyright protection and placing it in the public domain. -- http://www.osaia.org/letters/sco_hill.pdf
This is an amateurish mistake. The GPL actually depends on strong copyright protection in order to work. The GPL does not modify any copyrights -- it simply declares the copyright-holder's conditions for the use of the work.
If you violate the GPL, then the copyright-holder can fully claim their copyrights and file suit against you. That's the exact opposite of "taking it out of the realm of copyright protection", as Darl claims.
It's pretty sobering to see SCO send a letter to congressmen that contains such a whopping mistake in the law. It brings Darl's incompetency into sharp relief.
Re:The Danger of Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets be practical. SCO is a tiny business compared with IBM.
Even in Utah, they are dwarfed by Novell.
So while MS might not like GPL'd software (they like OSS; there's a lot of BSD in every MS operating system), they're not likely to lobby for something that they know is impractical and moreover would not be good for them in the long run.
So you have Darl versus IBM. SCO versus Novell. Versus Red Hat, and lots of tech companies that effectively use Linux in commercial products that make money. Just because SCO says its bad, what does that mean? Not much. Especially when you have IBM saying, "No, this is not bad, this is good".
This is SCO's diversion from the truth. Its the equivalent of flares that planes drop to avoid anti-aircraft missles.
yet another toke for Darl (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Their right (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. Open source is going to drive down the price of software. But the value is going up.
And, for the software developers among us, it will radically increase our value to society, as we can build higher-quality software.
Whether society will actually pay us for this increase in value isn't yet obvious. But my income-tax return for last year had a bottom line of around $110,000, and all of it was for software that ran on linux. Most of it was special-purpose software for one client. Some involved working on Open Source packages that we used, and of course we gave our patches back to the archives where we found the packages, thus benefitting society as a whole.
Re:Lobbying Impact (Score:3, Insightful)
Quite so, respond appropriately.
Dear Congressman,
Every year the US government spends many hundreds of millions of dollars supporting research projects at universities and other public institutes that result in the creation of large quantities of computer software. There are some who are arguing that such software should only be used for private gain rather than being made freely available by the public at large who paid for it.
Fortunately the few who hold this view are a distinct minority in the computer industry. Leading companies such as IBM have taken a very contrary position, making major investments in Linux, an open source software application. Researchers know that making computer software freely avaliable for use is the best way to share ideas. The World Wide Web revolution was made possible by open source software developed at two institutions funded by public money, CERN and NCSA.
Even those companies such as Microsoft who have questioned certain details of the way the open source movement makes software available have not questioned the principle that software developed with public money should be freely available as a public good. Indeed Microsoft argues that such software should be made available for both commercial and non-commercial exploitation.
As a practical matter the minority in question consists of a single company with negligible revenues, a limited working capital and a huge negative cash flow. It is unlikely that any of that money is going to find its way into your campaign coffers matey so forget that one for a start. Moreover if you do start pandering to this pathetic excressence in the hope of a big payout you are going to find your contributions from the rest of the industry disappearing faster than Ossama Bin Laden.
So be a good chap, don't be an asshole on this one and maybe CNN won't have to find out about that business in Ohio involving a vaccum cleaner, large quantities of lubricants and the Alsatian.
Re:In other words? (Score:1, Insightful)
The IE strongarming started in the days when Netscape truly was better and MS was scared. Netscape 2.x was the best era of Netscape. You got a WYSIWYG HTML editor, a mail/news client *and* a browser that wasn't NCSA Mosaic^W^WIE 1 or 2.
But Netscape started to suck badly not long after that, completely of their own free will. Netscape 4.x, with its inability to understand even slightly malformed HTML and it's inability to handle properly formed CSS, was one of the worst pieces of shit ever.
Now, IE 3 and earlier were all crap, but with 4 and later, MS made a real contender. It's not perfect, code-parsing wise, but it's a lot better than Netscape 4.x
What I hate are the security holes in IE and the inability of site authors to produce simple, clean websites that work in recent IE/Moz/Opera/Safari and don't have a shat of Flash,Java,Popups,etc.
Heinlein quote that comes to mind (Score:3, Insightful)
"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
Appropriate, I think, as it sounds like SCO is trying to get the government to mandate profitability for SCO.
Re:Lobbying Impact (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're mistaken if you see it that way. Very few U.S. politicians, if any, will.
Microsoft's monopoly is a huge job creator in the U.S. and the Washington congressional delegation makes sure everyone knows it. Its one of the few businesses left in the U.S. that has a huge trade surplus with the rest of the world.
Linux also has a lot more momentum outside the U.S. than it has in the U.S. It is a great equalizer in allowing the rest of the world to gain a foothold in software development that would otherwise be completely dominated by Microsoft and the U.S. Its pretty clear China, the rest of Asia, Europe, Brazil, etc have an incentive to go with Linux so they gain local control of software development, keep money at home instead of sending it to Microsoft and can prevent Microsoft and the U.S. from having a stranglehold on a critical part of their infrastructure. Not to mention the chance the NSA is using Microsoft software to spy on the world.
The Republicans, who completely dominate the U.S. now, are certain to be complete suckers for an argument that Linux threatens Microsoft and U.S. dominance of computing.
As soon as Bush and Ashcroft gained power they couldn't move fast enough to knock the legs out of the antitrust case against Microsoft and they are very likely to be eager to protect Microsoft in the future. They will always side with big business against rabal.
Re:Since when ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Since the government bailed out the agricultural industry, the savings and loan industry, the airline industry...
And that's just the last 15 years.
Re:Need good, solid, points of rebuttal (Score:3, Insightful)
North Korean Communists have full access to Linux (and BSD) source code, and thus have the ability to examine it for security flaws. Thanks to Microsoft giving a huge amount of Windows code to China, North Korean Communists likely have full access to Windows source code.
Americans have full access to Linux (and BSD) source code, and thus have the ability to examine it for security flaws. They do not, however, have access to Windows source code, and therefore have no way to determine if it's truly a secure system.
Which is better for national security: running a system that everyone can examine with a microscope, or running a system where only the Communists have the inner details?
If I could work "terrorists" in there, I think it'd be a home run.
Mods, please ignore me or mark me any way you want - except "funny". It isn't. This is serious.
Re:One point was correct (Score:3, Insightful)
Keep in mind what the rest of the world sees.
They don't see you, hoping to marry a millionaire at 55 so you can retire (hey, it happens... happened to my mom in fact). They don't see me, working on a Master's degree and glad as hell I'm graduating before our fees go up another 40% next year (on top of the 30% this year). They don't see my cousin, who pays about $600/month out of pocket for medical expenses (diabetes and so on), because it's cheaper than the $700 she'd have to pay for health insurance.
They see Ford Motor Co., Halliburton, and Michael Dell smiling at them and telling them how great it is to be an American. Wouldn't you hate us too? We're a country built not on opportunity, but on opportunists. Somehow the richest country in the world also has the highest child poverty rate of all first-world nations. And, given our amazing representative political system, we must like it that way, right?
Darl plays the religious angle (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lobbying Impact (Score:4, Insightful)
No, they couldn't really be hoping that all GPLed code will just magically become public domain. They are just hoping that a judge will come along and selectively strike certain key portions of the GPL license. This is always a possibility, no matter how small. However, to fundamentally change the terms under which thousands of people and companies have chosen, knowingly, to distribute their works seems unbelievable. I'm also not sure that one ruling in one case could lead to a general nullification of the GPL. It would set a negative precedent for interpreting the document, but another judge could come along and rule otherwise (one judicial ruling does not constitute a general affirmative defense for all other cases - so you'd expect such a decision to lead to a flurry of GPL violations and subsequent lawsuits).
When it comes down to it, it's all about the basic legal theory of contracts (sure, we can say it's a license, it's one way, it's not negotiated, etc. but fundamentally you are getting a set of additional rights in exchange for agreeing to a set of obligations). It's very difficult to prevent people from freely entering into contracts with each other. Unless the terms of a contract are explicitly in violation of existing laws, or the net result of a contract interferes with the basic human rights of one of the parties (like non-compete contracts in California), a court is pretty unlikely to render them all null and void.
But hey, you never know. The Supreme Court made a completely untenable decision in Eldred v. Ashcroft based on an entirely broken understanding of the Constitution. And this has led to a massive negative externality on all of us, with the loss of the public domain as a meaningful concept.
Re:Lobbying Impact (Score:5, Insightful)
This is utterly impossible. Just because your licensing scheme is illegal does not invalidate your copyright. For GPLd software to become public domain the US must sack all international copyright agreements and basically reinvent what copyright in itself means... which maybe would be a good thing, but probably quite catastrophic for SCO.
What does SCO want? As a company, who knows. What does McBride want? Attention, most probably. Money from sold stocks, coming book-deals, and what-not doesn't hurt either.
Re:I already asked (Score:2, Insightful)
This still points to SCO wanting to be bought out (Score:3, Insightful)
I still think their main focus is hoping to be bought out by IBM or other large Open Source corporation...just to shut them up.
Why else would they be acting so bizzare? Do they REALLY think they're going to gain back the Unix market this way? They're making public every little thing they do...including this little lobbying thing...for the world to see.
It's like they're screaming "stop us before we do more harm! we want to be caught! buy us out to end our insanity!"
I kinda wish that IBM would buy them out now, to make this all go away. I'm sick of it.
Re:That's the USR (Score:3, Insightful)
I less Identify myself as a Republican than as a Conservative and while that leads me to vote republican more often than democrat the policies of bush cause me to vote third party usually (during the state of the union I heard ka-ching every time he said something that I know will mean federal dollars.
What gets me is the hatred of the person that the left has, I did not hate Bill Clinton I hated his policies and that never translated into "I hope he dies" or painted my view of what he did do right. Bush says he wants the US to go to the moon and mars and people here rant about him when in their heart they like the idea.
And here we have SCO in the lobby and everyone hits bush when DRM$ money went to Fritz Hoillings..
Re:I already asked (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So... VERY OT thread... (Score:2, Insightful)
^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^
This is called innuendo. I do not ascribe to 99.99% of the religions on the planet and yet I refuse to engage in any attempts to belittle any of them. Show some character if you would Sir.
Besides, we are not discussing LDS teachings. This was a discussion regarding Daryl's harming the OSS community and how this might affect him when it's over. Personally I believe he has harmed me personally and the OSS community. He has committed fraud and will be punished.
I'm ending now. This conversation has gone way beyond where it was intended.
Re:I already asked (Score:3, Insightful)
In July I asked a personal friend of mine, who is associated in several capacities with many of the current and ex leadership of Novell, and who is also a recognized scholor of church history, if we should persue a course of action that would lead to Darl's excommunication from the church.
His immediate response was: "Has he done any harm to you personally?"
That pretty much ended the discussion.
Unless Darl does something to harm someone personally or commits a felony offense, it would be inapropriate to make a church case against him.
If you do not use and never want to use Linux he has not harmed you personally. If you do not feel harm in paying higher prices for worse software then he has not harmed you personally. If you do not care how many tax dollars are wasted on poorly made expensive software he has not harmed you personally. But it is unlikely all of these things are true of very many people.
Darl has publicly claimed that all linux users are thieves and terrorists and anti-american communists. He has tried to claim that SCO owns Linux and that people will have to pay SCO for Linux. He has written to congress asking that they outlaw GPL software because it is a threat to national security. All of these things, besides his many other adventures, have harmed me personally, and they may have harmed you.
I supported Clinton, but he lied... (Score:3, Insightful)
Two issues were deliberately obfuscated by the Republicans in their constitutionally-dubious attempt to impeach Clinton:
1) Clinton, as you correctly point out, told the factual truth in court (he did not have sex with that woman, where sex is defined as intercourse).
2) Clinton most assuredly lied to the American people (who wouldn't when confronted with an illicit affair, and since when would it have been anyone's business anyway, but that is a rant for another day) when he told them on television he had not had sex with that woman, knowing full well that "sex" in the common parlence he was using to address the nation most certainly did include oral sex.
Clinton should never have been impeached. He most certainly did not break the law, and even if he had, its breakage would be on par with that of a speeding ticket, not a "high crime" for which a president should be impeached. And before someone cites "and misdemeanors" I should point out the absurdity of impeaching for a misdemeanor: we could get Dubya on jay walking, speeding, cocain use, and what not if we were to apply the same standards, and as much as I want the warmongering usurper out of office, impeachment on that basis would be highly inappropriate, and something I would personally raise my voice against.
Clinton lied. If that makes him unfit for office (and one can make a reasonable argument that it does), then clearly Dubya, his father, Reagan before him, Nixon and Ford before them, etc. ad nausuem are even more unfit for office, for they lie not just about their private affairs, they lie about public policy, creating fabrications to start wars that cost people lives and sap the military strength of the nation and, in the latest episode, burn up alliances and diminish our diplomatic strength as well.