Groklaw Sends A Dear Darl Letter 268
Ralph Yarro writes "The Inquirer is carrying the text of an open letter sent to Darl McBride from members of the open source community at Groklaw. This is a lengthy and detailed response to the open letter Darl sent a while back."
SUCCESS! (Score:5, Funny)
As chairman and CEO of Canopy [canopy.com] I've done a lot for the Open Source community. I've promoted investments in companies like Linux Networx [linuxnetworx.com], who make the third fastest supercomputer in the world and use Linux to do it. Companies like Lineo [lineo.com] the masters of embedded Linux. Also Trolltech [trolltech.com] producing the incredible QT widget set used by the KDE [kde.org] project. And of course Caldera [caldera.com], producing the finest Linux distribution and pushing forwards the United Linux [unitedlinux.com] initiative.
But one shadow lay over my record of achievements. Despite all I had done for the Linux and Open Source communities, I still had never achieved the triumph I most desperately sought. Not once had an article I submitted been accepted by Slashdot [slashdot.org]
I'm sure my fellow Slashdotters can understand how this gnawed away at my soul.
Together with Darl McBride [slashdot.org] and David Boies [musicpundit.com] I hatched a master plan, to achieve my dream of an accepted Slashdot article or to destroy Linux trying.
Caldera would purchase IP rights from the Santa Cruz Operation and with funding from Sun [thesun.co.uk] and Microsoft [boardgames.com] would use them as the springboard to launch a devastating legal and PR blitz against Linux. As part of this Darl would write a searing open letter to the Open Source community, drawing responses in return. One of these from Groklaw [groklaw.com] would give me the opportunity I needed...
As you can see everything has gone exactly to plan. I have my successful Slashdot submission, and I'm sure that looking back on it you can all see it was worth any 'collateral damage' along the way.
Darl, you can call off the dogs now.
God bless you all.
Ralphie [canopy.com]
You know (Score:5, Insightful)
"A dynamic operating company"
What the hell does that mean?
Re:You know (Score:2, Funny)
dynamic : 2 a : marked by usually continuous and productive activity or change (a dynamic city)
operating: 4 : to follow a course of conduct that is often irregular (crooked gamblers operating in the club)
company : 2 a : a group of persons or things (a company of horsemen)
So, they are a bunch of crooks that continually attack others. That wasn't so hard now, was it?
Re:You know (Score:2)
Re:You know (Score:5, Funny)
2. ???
3. Profit!
You're looking at the website wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:You know (Score:5, Funny)
It plays games [computerworld.com] with stock and venture capital in order to cash in on scams like the current SCOX stock bubble. This does perform the economically useful activity of taking money out of the hands of incompetent people, but unfortunately it just puts the money into the hands of unethical people instead.
Re:You know (Score:4, Funny)
What the hell does that mean?
It means that it's more unpredictable than a "static operating company."
Re:You know (Score:3, Funny)
Or for those who like to think in code:
#include "company.h"
Company * cPtr = new Company; // dynamic operating company
Company Canopy; // static operating company
Re:You know (Score:5, Funny)
So you think our website should explain what we do? And have the SEC shutting us down? I don't think so.
Re:SUCCESS! (Score:4, Funny)
I'm sure my fellow Slashdotters can understand how this gnawed away at my soul.
Surely you meant "knawed".
Linux A Hoax (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Linux A Hoax (Score:5, Funny)
September 19, 2003
Torvalds Announces Linux "A Hoax"
SANTA CLARA, CALIF. -- In a shocking announcement Linus Torvalds,
creator of the Linux operating system kernel, revealed that the wildly
successful Linux was "an elaborate hoax."
"Alan [Cox] and I just made it up," said Torvalds, "We wanted to have
our own OS but didn't know how to make one and neither of us could
afford a subscription to MSDN. It's been real hell faking all of
those patch submissions for the last twelve years. I'm just glad it's
over."
Torvalds went on to describe how Linux has been assembled over the
years from stolen code, mostly from SCO's Unixware server operating
system. Large portions were also lifted from Novell's NetWare 3 and
Microsoft's Altair BASIC.
When asked if he felt any remorse over the affair he replied, "Sorta.
But everybody does it. The KDE project is mostly de-compiled Windows
code and Eric Raymond copied 'The Cathedral and the Bazaar' verbatim
from an MIT enrollment brochure. Most open-source developers are just
coders who couldn't hack it in the real world where everybody runs
Windows."
Concluding his announcement Torvalds encouraged Linux users to "either
purchase a legitimate license from SCO or install GNU HURD."
Alan Cox declined to comment.
Mod Parent up == WAY up! (Score:2, Insightful)
Thanks for the ROTFLOL thing.
Re:Linux A Hoax (Score:2, Informative)
In other words, if you get modded up to +5 Funny, then 6 Moderators mods you down, then get modded back up to +5 Funny, then 6 more moderators mod you down again, rinse and repeat. You could in theory have Terrible
Ha! Ha! That's great... (Score:5, Insightful)
On a more serious note, maybe this is what it takes to get some real "street cred" for Free SW/Open Source among Corporate Amerika. It's just a bummer for me that things have to go *that* far in the 1st place.
Re:Ha! Ha! That's great... (Score:2)
Except that the GPL covers distribution, while SCO is licensing usage.
I don't think they've read SCO's license FAQ carefully enough, nor paid enough attention to paragraph 7 of the GPL.
If this weren't the case, then any patent-encumbured GPL'd software would fail under the GPL for distribution.
My question is how SCO can license usage for a product, even if there is copyrighted material in it. Patents cover usage. SCO has made no patent claims.
Thanks for fucking ripping me off dude (Score:5, Informative)
Here is the original post [yahoo.com].
k :| (Score:2, Funny)
But SCO is the exception to this rule, even more than BRE-X that people keep mentioning here. The facts are already in, enough of them anyways. Even if there IS inappropriate code in Linux from UNIX,
Groklaw = SCO news heaven (Score:5, Funny)
Beating Darl at his Own Game (Score:5, Interesting)
FUD remark: (Score:4, Funny)
So are they saying Fear Uncertanty & Doubt?
or should I read:
"...your call for indemnification is, to put it bluntly, F**cked Up Darl."
Re:Beating Darl at his Own Game (Score:5, Insightful)
My real curiosity is how people's attitudes or feelings would change (or not change) if it turns out SCO is right (however unlikely that is).
Why should anyone's attitude toward SCO change? It has been pointed out repeatedly that if IBM did a no-no, then SCO will get damages (be paid for their IP, ha ha), and the offending code would be removed from the kernel because it violates the GPL (not because we would have to).
SCO has no right to claim ownership of Linux in any case, nor to charge Linux users license fees. What they are doing is thinly veiled extortion. Why on earth would I change my opinion of them?
Re:Beating Darl at his Own Game (Score:5, Insightful)
Is SCO right? Only time will tell. When they begin to attempt the extortion of Linux users and companies next month, the backlash will start a series of actions that will have some finality to this matter. And from that point forward, Linux will either repair, remove, and move on, or Linux users of the world will laugh SCO right out of the stock market and the IT world.
For me, I don't care which happens as long as this is over. Neither outcome will affect me personally. Worst case scenario, my kernel is illegal and I fix it myself or download a patched kernel. Could I continue using a bad kernel without getting caught?
Probably. But I won't. I, like most other Linux users, take pride in OSS.
Re:Beating Darl at his Own Game (Score:4, Insightful)
I feel SCO, Microsoft, government, etc. are representative of institution gone wrong. It is my opinion that such entities are a drain on humanity, and have no good will toward humankind, and exist only to increase their own power over others.
My attitude is they can all go die, and the world may be a better place.
If they want me to change my opinions, attitudes or feelings, they would have to completely change. No more hoarding of billions of dollars for a select few, but truly give back to humanity, stop invasions of not only other countries, but the rights of all humans, and put people, all people, as priority over profit, power, and promotion.
This is the greatest thing about the Open source/Free Software movement. I hear people rant about how, instead of 115 text editors available to open source, they'd rather see one good groupware suite. Well, the beauty of Open Source is, there were at least 115 people/groups who thought, gee, I see where the things I want from a text editor are lacking, so I think I'll build my own. Accordingly, people who say, gee I really need a groupware suite, have the choice of sitting down and either writing one of their own, or paying someone else to build it.
I can see, just by looking at this, that people involved with open source don't, at this time, see the need for a good groupware suite, as no one has built one yet. When the need gets big enough, someone or some group will build it. Look at Sun and IBM. They must see a need for it, as they are currently working on one (separately.)
I guarantee an Open Source groupware suite will become better much quicker than a proprietary one, as anyone, anywhere can contribute to it.
If SCO turns out to have a valid claim, fine. Linux will remove the code and I will still feel complete naked hatred toward SCO, and ALL institutions such as they who see humanity as a pool of consumers to be culled for money or power, as opposed to a customer base who likes their products.
Re:Beating Darl at his Own Game (Score:4, Interesting)
No need to put my fingers in my ears or claim it's a conspiracy anyway. The offending code has allegedly already been removed.
Re:Beating Darl at his Own Game (Score:3, Insightful)
So, given that hypothetical, what would people here think? Would you forgive SCO?
Absolutely not! If, indeed any SCO code is in the kernel, all they would have had to do (as has been made very clear to them) is point out the offending lines with reasonable evidence, and they'd have been long outta there by now with all due apologies.
So even if there is actual SCO code improperly in the kernel, that doesn't change the fact that they are actively seeking to steal the work of many thousands all over the w
Re:Beating Darl at his Own Game (Score:3, Insightful)
Specifically, there's legal precedent about what to do if you find someone distributing your copyrighted work without permission. You send a cease & desist, with specific notice about what the infringing work is. See the DMCA sections on takedown notices (those don't rely apply, but they are related). See A&M versus Napster, where the Ninth Ci
Topology of the letters (Score:5, Funny)
one closed region: A,D,O,P,Q,R
two closed regions: B
Re:Topology of the letters (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Don't forget lowercase! (Score:2, Interesting)
Ah, but "g" is ambiguous; in courier, it's one closed, but in Times, it's two closed regions.
(Is there a point to this?)
Re:Topology of the letters (Score:2)
Closed letter (Score:5, Funny)
So in response, I am writing a closed letter to both SCO and the open source community. And no one can read it since it's closed. So there!
Re:Closed letter (Score:5, Funny)
I wrote a letter to SCO too (Score:3, Funny)
Awesome pimpslap (Score:5, Funny)
If you can identify any infringing source code, please do so, prove it is infringing, and let us remove it, because we surely do not want it.
We do not need or want your legacy UNIX source code
which reveals that your call for indemnification is, to put it bluntly, FUD
We would think, however, that a capable information technology company that sells web services software would have the technical know-how to handle a DDoS attack, if that is really what happened. Most such companies do handle them without being brought to their knees for a week. We are glad that you say you have since learned technical steps you can take to protect yourself in the future.
Your inability to make your Linux business a success, while unfortunate for you, parallels your company's failure to make your UNIX business a success
If you're looking for a successful business model, you might consider the tried and true model of satisfied customers.
Man, that was a fun read!
Re:Awesome pimpslap (Score:5, Funny)
'The headline should be "groklaw Whips Out Penis and Proceeds to Beat Darl McBride With It."'
I'm wondering how the author of piece, Pamela Jones, will take that.
Re:Awesome pimpslap (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Awesome pimpslap (Score:2)
Well, PJ's pretty cool, so she'll probably read it in the spirit in which it was intended. But the disconnect between author and characterization was pretty comical.
Re:Awesome pimpslap (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Awesome pimpslap (Score:2)
Your letter attempted to portray us as a counter-cultural fringe element. On the contrary, the truth is that our community is very much in the mainstream already and includes many of the largest and most successful businesses today, including IBM, Red Hat, Merrill Lynch, Lucent Technologies, Unilever, Verisign, Dell, Amazon, Google, Dreamworks, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Oak R
Re:Awesome pimpslap (Score:2)
--
Evan
Re:Awesome pimpslap (Score:2)
[admin dude at maps.yahoo.com: "Hey, wh
I live in St. George, you insensitve clod! (Score:2)
Nevermind.
Re:Awesome pimpslap (Score:2)
This letter was released on a Saturday when no CIO is at work. Since ZDNET only updates their web site on M-F they will probably not even report on it. The mainstream press which is already hostile to open source also will not pick up on it. Finally I guarantee you that nobody in the financial press will even notice it let alone post it for investors to see.
It would have been b
SCO is nuts (Score:5, Informative)
If SCO has copyright material that has been infringed upon, they have to go to the INFRINGER (whoever has access to their code and copied it, meaning the code and not just a work-alike clean-room code, into the kernel) for damages. End users and unwitting publishers of infringing materials are not listed in USC-17 as liable for infringement. You can't get damages from a publisher if one author of a short story collection lied about the authorship, nor can you collect from the bookstores and purchasers.
If they have proof that Red Hat is distributing infringing material, they first have to notify RH what the infringing material is. As the innocently infringing publisher, RH has the chance to double check the material, and either remove it or check its pedigree dispute the infringing nature of it.
The only time a publisher can be nailed for damages is if the plaitiff can prove they knew, or could reasonable have been expected to know, that a work was copyright. This covers sleazy anthology publishers who don't bother to get permissions and pay royalties, and anyone stupid enough to accept a well-known work of fiction from anyone but the real author.
Re:SCO is nuts (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the trend in litigation is to go after whoever can pay, by reading additional duties into existing laws. If you serve drinks at a party, and a partygoer kills someone while driving home drunk, who is liable? It would make sense that the driver is solely liable for his or her actions, but in fact recent rulings [lutz.nb.ca] indicate that the
DOC (Score:4, Interesting)
Great letter guys, (Score:3, Insightful)
Ouchhh!..or is it??? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Ouchhh!..or is it??? (Score:5, Informative)
It's been floating around for a while, and The Inq has a companion research link where you can verify all the assertions in the Groklaw letter [theinquirer.net].
Re:Ouchhh!..or is it??? (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.sco.com/products/lkp/
"The Linux(R) Kernel Personality (LKP) for UnixWare 7.1.3 provides Linux environment hosted on the UnixWare kernel. This environment does not contain a Linux kernel, but does contain the PRMs needed to run most Linux applications. By invoking the UnixWare kernel to run the Linux application, the application gets all of the performance and scalability advantages that UnixWare delivers. Linux applications that are disk or database intensive, or require support for a large number of users, typically perform with greater stability, reliability, and scalability when deployed on the UnixWare LKP environment."
"Since UnixWare is much more powerful, scalable and secure than Linux, customers may replace multiple Linux servers with a single, more powerful UnixWare server."
Goddamn, you can't make up stuff this funny!
(I also liked the "Flame Editor" link at the bottom of The Inquirer's page. Apparently all their articles use that wording.)
Trademark violation (Score:2)
Well, since this commercial product does not contain a Linux(TM) kernel, where does SCO get off using the registered trademark Linux(TM) as part of its name?
what about ILM? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:what about ILM? (Score:2)
Re:what about ILM? (Score:2)
ILM is Lucas
Dreamworks is Spielberg
Re:what about ILM? (Score:2)
Re:what about ILM? (Score:2)
Heh. Even Darl doesn't want to claim even the tiniest, most roundabout, tenuous responsibility for Jar-Jar Binks.
Useless unless (Score:3, Insightful)
$1 says we don't see this attributed anywhere in the "major IT media".
Re:Useless unless (Score:2)
What does it take to get listed on "business intelligence" sites like finance.yahoo.com and brokers' sites? People should send in these open letters as press releases, at the very least.
Perhaps under a headline such as "FooBar Inc. announces intent to acquire SCOX" -- for $0.000000001 per share, based on our expectation that they will fail in court..
Re:Useless unless (Score:2, Informative)
PR Newswire happy-talk policy (Score:4, Informative)
Publicly traded companies automatically get their ticker symbol included in every release they issue. This is required so the releases will index properly on the hundreds of Web sites and databases carrying PR Newswire copy. The use of ticker symbols NOT belonging to the company issuing the news release will only be permitted if the news involving the second company is determined to be "material" by PR Newswire or if the ticker belongs to the issuing organization's parent company or subsidiary. If applicable, please list additional tickers and respective exchanges: For releases that contain ticker symbols that are not materially-related or do not fit the above criteria, the use of the second party's ticker symbol is allowed only with the written permission from that second party. Please attach authorized permission from any such companies.
If you want to get your release onto a company's financials, you need to get it onto Reuters, AP, or Bloomberg.
Letter asks: Where's the code? (Score:3, Interesting)
Imagine a class-action lawsuit against SCO (Score:2)
I'm sure the LKP code would look really nice made public as part of the discovery process, if there truly is GPL code stolen by SCO in it.
Re:Imagine a class-action lawsuit against SCO (Score:2)
The GNU kernel has not been brought into this yet. Only the Linux contributers would have a case unless SCO expands their claims (which is likely when they run out of Linux FUD).
Re:Imagine a class-action lawsuit against SCO (Score:2)
The poster called it "GNU/Linux" because some idiot thought it was a bright idea to insist everyone call anything Linux "GNU/Linux."
I just wish.. (Score:2)
Subtle..... (Score:4, Funny)
Your inability to make your Linux business a success, while unfortunate for you, parallels your company's failure to make your UNIX business a success. Perhaps the problem isn't Linux, the GPL, or the open source business model.
A good letter, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Do the Wall Street types know something that we don't about the likelihood of SCO actually winning in court, or are they just massively ignorant about how much SCO is going to go down once this issue gets heard in a court of law?
I think both of those alternatives are scary. Particlarly as i sold short SCOX at $16
Re:A good letter, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
If you watch the trades during trading hours you can see lots of strange behavior and what appears to be obvious trading designed to keep the stock above certain amounts.
It is especially obvious during the last hour of the day when then stock rises no matter how it had been trading the rest of the day.
Here is an example from Friday [yahoo.com]
SCOX is not up on normal market demand.. (Score:5, Interesting)
SCOX [thomsonfn.com]
RHAT [thomsonfn.com]
IBM [thomsonfn.com]
MSFT [thomsonfn.com]
If you look at the pie charts at the bottom of the pages, it seems that only retail traders are willing to let anyone know they are buying/selling SCOX. For the most part the known SCOX traders are people using online trading or calling up their broker and making a trade request.
There are virtually no institutional traders who are willing to publicly advertise they are trading SCOX.
Now all of these charts show a large portion of traders that are unknown, however, I have a suspicion that the unknown traders in SCOX are the driving force behind raising the stock price. And my suspicion tells me that it may be for two reasons, 1) it creates an impression that the market has faith in the SCO case and expects a big windfall coming to SCO, and 2) with SCO execs dumping stock this is one way that someone could provide a payoff without directly transfering cash to SCO or its execs.
Of course this is purely speculation and I could just be paranoid. You'll have to make your own judgement as to what the numbers mean.
burnin
Re:A good letter, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is, its not a matter of whose really right or wrong here, because its entirely possible the court system could 'get it wrong'. Even if we all agree that SCO is 100% in the wrong here and has no possible evidence at all, I wouldn't want to bet that a jury would find the same way.
Re:A good letter, but... (Score:2)
I have also read that there are discussions on stock boards where people are guessing that SCO will sell licenses to X percent of a bazillion Linux users at $1400 a pop. This gives a huge income for a company worth $250M, enticing day-trader types, unless you know enough to realize that the most likely valu
Any real block of stock tanks this pig... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's up on very small volume, little trades of 100 shares here, 100 shares there. Any time that someone sells a block larger than 5k other than in after-hours trading, the price takes a $0.25-1.00 nosedive pretty much on the spot.
It's up on gross speculation and market maker playing around with the valuation- it's nothing more than a bubble like Enron or WorldCom, and it's going to implode just like them soon enough.
How to handle SCO (Score:2, Funny)
This Comment was generated with the Comment-O-Matic for SCO Stories. [rageagainst.net]
Harrah for the Open Source Community (Score:3, Interesting)
True, but prepare for the bitchslap anyway... (Score:2)
I was reading another article on some pro-MS rag where they actually quoted some PHB as saying that he'd be glad to pay off SCO just to get them to 'lay off' with the legal action. Yeah, like that'll ever happen - this is their BREAD AND BUTTER now!
We here at Slashdot and others in the 'community' might take the time, but the truth is, SCO
WHO CARES? (Score:2)
But I DO NOT care about every little open letter sent from Darl's dog to his grandmother regarding OSS.
Lets get back to 'stuff that matters.'
I do wonder (Score:2)
Weather SCO will back down out of this or weather they will keep claiming unprooved facts to avoid admitting they "might be wrong".
Also, I wonder if (are they any?!) linux users that have paid for these so called licences will get refunds when this case falls apart.
The longer this drags on, the more arguments between the OSS community, relivant organisations that have IP rights in the Unix field - the more tangled this legal mess will become.
When will it end?!
-- Jim
Great letter... but... (Score:4, Insightful)
W
On that note-- it would be cool to set up a fund to get Linux position statements like this in the NYT or other news publications. Does anyone know about a Linux Publicity Fund or something similar?
If It Were True, And I Removed Offending Code..... (Score:4, Insightful)
The Linux kernel comes to me as source code. So suppose I vi in there and remove the bad code. Then I compile and run. SCO can look anytime they like and see that I'm running Linux with a 2.4 kernel but they can pucker up and kiss my ass.
Right?
Or am I missing something here? It just seems to me that even if the courts did find some truth to their story there is still an easy way around them.
Well, It's A Nice Letter (Score:3, Insightful)
However, since SCO is essentially an extortion racket, it's irrelevant to them.
This is like writing John Giotti a letter saying that crime doesn't pay. Or writing Saddam Hussein a letter saying a country runs better under a democracy (does it? Looking around, I'm beginning to wonder...)
McBride and Groklaw are penpals? (Score:3, Funny)
I have also written a letter to SCO (Score:3, Funny)
But first they have to sign a NDA to read it!
Too Long! (Score:3, Insightful)
The well-reasoned thinking, the comprehensive argument, the lack of smug sarcasm all work in this letter's favor. But I just can't see your average C-level executive taking the time to read it.
YES YES YES -- need short and clear arguments (Score:3, Interesting)
You praise this letter's "lack of smug sarcasm"; that may be true, compared to the common exchanges by these combatants, but from the perspective of a CIO/CTO desk the letter is still pretty smarmy and superior.
It's like '80's Apple users talking about the PC world: "We know we're right and everybody else does too, but we'll do you a favor and take you through this argument once more...because you're such a dope." Success will
Thanks Groklaw (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot Bias (Score:3, Informative)
SCO has not presented any proof, and only made unsubstantiated claims. Until they substantiate, everything they say is open to question. The few times they *DID* try and present proof, it was demonstrated to be incorrect and they tried to spin their way out of it.
Finally,
Re:Slashdot Bias (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot Bias (Score:2, Insightful)
They posted the open letter from Darl McBride [slashdot.org]. If his own words, complete and in context, are anti-SCO or don't show SCO to be right then I doubt there's much more Slashdot can do.
Re:Not True (Score:5, Informative)
It was resolved by being disproved. The complaint was based on the mistaken view that the only way to get those structures was from Soren when in fact the author of those headders had gotten the documentation from the manufacturer.
The similarities are easilly explained by the fact that the structures use standard variable names and are in a layout dictated by the hardware.
In short: there was no coppying.
Re:Not True (Score:3, Informative)
Go to the rpm.org website [rpm.org] where, on the front page, there's a lin
Re:Not True (Score:2)
You didn't even bother to read the last half of my post. Show me where they distribute the source for the RedHat Package Manager in a format I can read without installing RedHat's distro or somehow having the program already installed. They only supply it in rpm form. How do I read an rpm if the program to read it is hidden in an rpm format? Am I supposed to extract the files with a hex editor?
Re:Not True (Score:3, Informative)
How about here [rpm.org]?
Note the file called rpm-4.1.tar.gz.
Re:Not True (Score:2)
[gentoo.org]
Here is a Gentoo ebuild.
Re:Not True (Score:3, Informative)
The point was... (Score:2)
This is an important fact. SCO has been painting the FOSS commmunity as a bunch of anarcho-socialist, pot-smokin', JD drinkin', code-stealin', wife-beatin', non-conformin', US-hatin', anti-Freedom neo-hippies. SCO presents this as strawman character assassination, and so Groklaw points out that
Re:The holocaust is a lie (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What about the "derivative" technologies issue? (Score:2)
Re:Surely the folks at GrokLaw have learned... (Score:2)