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.
So... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So... (Score:3, Funny)
Ummm.... last time I checked the universe was encoded. You have the source? I'd love to see it! Maybe we can release a special build without SCO in it!
Re:So... (Score:4, Funny)
----------------------
#include <iostream.h>
int main()
{
int life_the_universe_and_everything;
life_the_unive
cout << "We apologise for the inconvenience";
}
Re:So... (Score:5, Funny)
"Dear Pope,
Being the CEO of SCO, a Holy Company on a Holy Crusade against the Evil forces of Linux and the GPL can you please ask God to strike them down. Knowing these things can take time, can you please publically ex-communicate these Hippies from the Church".
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)
Mormons FOR Open Source! (Score:5, Interesting)
"Some readers, at this point, may be somewhat surprised that I am talking about legaleze and lawsuits regarding a humble churchy program. I have to do this in order to protect my freedom and your freedom. There are a lot of greedy people out there who would take the community's hard work, which they have made free, and make their work non-free in order to make money and/or to take power. The GPL is designed to keep that from happening, by leveraging existing copyright law to protect the code."
Amen to that.
I wonder if Darl is on their mailing list?
Lobbying Impact (Score:3, Insightful)
SCO will have a major impact I'm sure. They can make their political contributions in stock options.
Re:Lobbying Impact (Score:5, Funny)
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:5, Insightful)
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: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
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.
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:Lobbying Impact (Score:5, Informative)
Or failing that, just point them to IBM and the enormous success they've enjoyed with Linux in spite of the fact that it's free. Microsoft and a couple of patent-mongering UNIX firms may be losing money from this, but everybody else is gaining from it.
Re:Lobbying Impact (Score:4, Interesting)
AFAIK, Eben Moglen can be considered one of the authors of the GPL, and I wonder what a professor of law and history of columbia would have to say about this. Isn't there a punishment for slander in the US btw, especially if it can be proved that the difference between public domain and software licenced under the GPL was brought to the attention of SCO on numerous occasions. This is getting more and more ridiculous, and the sad thing is that you are probably right. Seeing the current political climate, this appeals to most polititians unfortunately.
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.
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.
Re:Lobbying Impact (Score:5, Interesting)
It needs to be presented as a way to save American *businesses*.
Look at IBM in the three years before getting the "Open Source Religion" and the three years afterwards...
Look at all the (fair) studies showing that the OS development model produces code faster, with less errors... using programmers with sub-optimal skills...
Look at what the model has produced in 10 years and compare it to what the proprietary model employeed by MS has produced in twice the amount of time... and then compare the cost of obtaining each result...
Show them the latest figures concerning losses suffered by American *businesses* due to viruses affecting proprietary software, and the inability of *any* business to solve the problem because the software *is* proprietary...
Put it in terms that a CEO can understand, and let *them* make sure their "representatives" have the facts.
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.
Re:That's the USR (Score:5, Interesting)
In reality, if you asked George Bush who SCO is, he probably wouldn't know. But I'm pretty sure he knows who IBM is.
And IBM has lobbyists too, plus they could easily donate the entire value of SCO to political campaigns if they wanted to.
Re:That's the USR (Score:5, Interesting)
Republicans are actually well-known for decrying what they see as abuses of the civil courts by money-grubbing trial lawyers; this is one of their favorite slams on John Edwards. One wouldn't expect them to be sympathetic towards a company that has shifted their entire business model towards filing lawsuits against nearly every successful tech company in the country.
Frankly, I think IBM, RedHat, and the rest should counter with an aggressive pro-capitalism endorsement of the GPL. They should emphasize how collaborative software development and open standards are improving technology for both industry and consumer. Basically, just copy Microsoft's "Freedom to Innovate" campaign, applied to Linux instead.
(And above all, keep RMS muzzled.)
Re:That's the USR (Score:5, Funny)
And IBM has lobbyists too, plus they could easily donate the entire value of SCO to political campaigns if they wanted to.
But what would anyone really want with 47 cents worth of stock options?
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.
all I have to say is... (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that what he is saying?
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.
They'll never muzzle him (Score:5, Interesting)
I would have agreed with you, back when SCO was pretending it's lawyers were just working on contingency. In that case, the lawyers would be paid only if SCO won the IBM case, and so it would make sense for them to do everything possible (including shutting up Darl) to ensure a victory.
Now that we know that SCO's lawyers are getting paid even if they lose, we can no longer be certain that they're expecting (or even hoping) to win. In fact, it's possible that SCO's lawyers are quite aware of how they're getting [microsoft.com] paid [sun.com] and understand that Darl's media circus is more likely to extend those paychecks than to curtail them.
Re:In other words? (Score:5, Interesting)
This, obviously, is a summary, but the point remains - this has happened before. The only difference is Hearst had a stranglehold on the media industry and therefore public opinion, and all kinds of crazy views are available on the internet.
Re:In other words? (Score:5, Funny)
Mr. Garrison: Excuse me, what the hell are you doing?
Agent 1: It's alright, we're with the government.
Agent 2: We're just shutting you down.
Mr. Garrison: Shutting me down? Why?
Agent 3: The airlines are in desperate trouble. Your vehicle is causing them to lose money.
Mr. Garrison: Yeah, well that was the point, dingleberry! put that down!
Agent 4: Right, so the government is bailing the airlines out again, but shutting you down and making ITs illegal.
Mr. Garrison: OH, GOD-DAMNIT! You'd better be kidding!
Agent 5: Sir, many people work for the airlines. We can't let them all be fired.
Mr. Garrison: THE AIRLINE COMPANIES ARE LOSING MONEY BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN INCOMPETENCE AND THEIR OWN INEFFICIENCY!!
Agent 6: That may be true. But if you build, sell, or ride another IT, "it" will be the last time. Have a nice night.
Re:In other words? (Score:5, Interesting)
Funnily enough yes. The strangest part though is that Darl thinks that killing OSS in the US will kill it worldwide. I forsee a problem with this particularly with respect to France and Germany who have Mandrake and (Novell owned) SuSE in their back yards. An attempt to kill off homegrown products in countries that are already wary of the US following the Iraq business could lead to WTO complaints, trade wars, import tariffs on US made software and an even greater determination in the rest of the world to replace proprietry software that would be percieved as being forced on them.
Even in Microsoft friendly Britain this would have an impact as tariffs applied across the EU would hit all the EU states making OSS a better value choice. I also can't see China, Russia and India reacting too well to the US seemingly attempting to force Linux out of existence in order to provide MS and SCO with a better cash cow. There are 6 billion potential computer users in the world of which 250 (ish) million are in the USA. Making too many other countries feel like they're choice as consumers is being dictated from Redmond/Utah may not be as good for the US economy as Darl thinks.
With a diminished US software presence in Europe, China and Asia Mandrake, SuSE, Red-Star etc. would probably see a boom in profits and an industry providing support would develop that would generate cash that wouldn't head to Gate's wallet improving home grown companies positions.
OK so this is a bit doomsday but shit happens and unpredictability is part of the modern world. I mean a year or two ago most people had never heard of Darl McBride, now he's he's one of the most famous arseholes in the IT world.
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.
Facts about open source (Score:5, Funny)
2. Open-source products are available to anyone, which led to outflux of jobs out of United States, since a developer in Tanzania knows Apache or MySQL just as well, but is willing to work for 2 kilos of rice a day, unlike their greedy American counterparts.
3. Open-source projects have never been tested and approved by Microsoft or other reliable software vendors with market cap over 100 billion and public trust behind them.
4. All open source companies are either bankrupt, or litigating, or in the process of bankruptcy/litigation process.
5. Open source companies contributed more to the job losses in the software industry than any other company sector. Microsoft had always been hiring and so have other closed-source companies.
6. Open source does not have a vital business model.
7. There are many software shops that write little Access-thingies and make thousands of dollars per month. Microsoft had made thousand of millionaires in the software business. Linux so far only earned money for IBM and HP.
8. As Linus himself shamefully admitted, errno.h was shamelessly copied from SCO Software Development Labs. Thus the terrorist organizations around the world know the error codes for any Linux system and potentially coudl disrupt nuclear reactors and spaceships.
If you can't win in the courtroom... (Score:4, Funny)
Its too late, Darl. You can't preserve your house of cards by hoping someone will change the laws of physics for you.
Need good, solid, points of rebuttal (Score:5, Interesting)
sPh
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!
But ofcourse (Score:5, Informative)
Re:But ofcourse (Score:5, Informative)
Re:But ofcourse (Score:5, Informative)
Being close to the DRDOS case, I happen to know it. In fact, Caldera created a spinoff around 1997 that was called Caldera Digital Research, that was later renamed Caldera Thin Clients, then Lineo, then Lineo was swallowed by Metrowerks. The folks who profited from the DRDOS case were the lawyers (of course), a bit Lineo and a lot Canopy. Caldera Systems (the Linux folks) didn't profit from that, or perhaps some execs did but not Caldera as a company, unless I'm mistaken.
At any rate, the settlement was estimated around $155M, which is hardly enough to keep such a company afloat for long, especially now. But would you remember it, OpenLinux was once a popular distro, one that was quite ahead of its time. It sold well at some point.
Not just Samba... (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, I get it now! "We don't like free software, except on our terms - i.e. when we're using it exclusively, it's O.K., but otherwise, get rid of it already!"
Geez. They must really, really want to be disliked...
Congress (Score:5, Funny)
- Milton Berle
Lobbying Congress (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, SCO isn't the only company out there lobbying against Linux. This is something Redmond has been actively pursuing long before, and we know how much of a pull those guys have in American government.
We may think it's a stupid threat, but folks, I've seen stupider things happen in politics.
Re:Lobbying Congress (Score:5, Interesting)
IBM seems to be doing okay. They announced better than expected earnings and are anticipating hiring more than previously projected. Yes, many of the jobs are not in the U.S., but IBM probably pays more in sales tax on their corporate lunches than SCO does in total tax.
Re:Lobbying Congress (Score:5, Interesting)
If the SCO team can convince congress that this bill somehow might affect their own lives personally, this could mean big trouble...
On the other hand, though, the claims they are making are ridiculous, and they have yet to prove in court that they actually do own part of the Linux code. Perhaps congress will wait for the outcome of the trial before proceeding.
Is lying to Congress illegal? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Is lying to Congress illegal? (Score:4, Funny)
It would appear it isn't. [tripod.com]
Re:Is lying to Congress illegal? (Score:3, Funny)
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...
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).
Even for SCO this is an odd line of defense (Score:5, Interesting)
It's akin to saying people who donate their time to help newbies understand computers hurt the bottom line of universities offering CS course. That's silly, people do what they want with what they produce. How can they force people to stop donating what they make?
Then again, at least regarding the Linux kernel, they argue that part of it is theirs, and therefore can't be "donated", so it makes sense in their perpective, in an odd acid trip sort of way
Unilikely to succeed... (Score:3, Funny)
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.
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!
Ah, the internet (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
If the
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."
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.
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.
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.
One small company against the world... (Score:5, Interesting)
Darl, you're an idiot who just doesn't get it. You've got enough lawsuits going (what are we up to now: IBM, HP, Google, ???) might as well add another front to your war.
Good riddance SCO, you're bound to loose. And you, Darl, will go down in history as the sorriest idiot ever to run a company. You got in and you let the lawyers take over. And to think that SCO was once a decent player in the GNU/Linux arena. Sour grapes, huh? Asshole.
GJC
I for one, welcome our new Insect Overlords (Score:5, Interesting)
But wait -- don't say anything about Open-Source, software, UNIX, Linux, etc.
Just re-hash the same arguments SCO is making, but in a parody. We should argue that it should be illegal to fix your car in your driveway, since it robs tax-paying mechanics of their livelihood.
With enough access to the drivel coming out of the SCO lobbyist's mouth, it could make for some pretty hilarious (and pointed) commentary.
Codified SCO business plan (Score:5, Funny)
my $funds = get_money('src'=>'microsoft');
$funds += get_money('src'=>'sun');
$funds += get_money('src'=>'baystar');
$funds += get_money('src'=>'hapless_investors');
while ( $funds > 0 )
{
$funds -= pay_legal();
sue_someone('target'=>rand);
public_release('threat'=>rand);
}
die;
  ;
Obligatory Microsoft Comment. (Score:3, Insightful)
What Darl really meant to say. (Score:5, Funny)
"Please legislate to save our industry so we can send it to offshore sweatshops and make gazillions (and those election campaigns ain't cheap hey Mr Congresscritter )."
2. The threat to our international competitive position.
"Forget anthrax - Linux is the real WMD!"
3. The threat to our national security.
"Forget Saddam - Linus is the real enemy of humanity, and you can add Finland to the axis of evil! Those Finns, what have they done for us recently, with their weird language and dinky little phones."
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.
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...
Darl caught lying in Salt Lake (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/2004/feat_200
In this article, which is really above average, Darl McBride is quoted making the following interesting statement:
"McBride says SCO revealed the offending code last August at its Las Vegas SCOForum. "Truly, and then they just ignored it," he said."
Now, I must point out Bruce Perens put his analysis of the Las Vegas SCOforum with hours of it ending last August 18th.
Link to Perens analysis:
http://www.perens.org/SCO/SCOSlideShow.html
Also, Darl misquoted Perens' website so Darl knows it exists. Therefore, for Darl McBride to say that the Las Vegas SCOforum's showing of code "was ignored" is to make a lie that can be documented quite easily.
Darl McBride: documented liar
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.
i love this quote: (Score:5, Funny)
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: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.
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.
"Linux Helps Terrorism" (Score:5, Funny)
They think that... (Score:5, Insightful)
I dunno, I think the huge US corporations pose a greater threat.
They trying to get the Feds to buy licenses! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Faith based (Score:3, Funny)
Then the claim could be made that it is faith based and since that is the thing that the administration likes best (after wars, oil and Profit!) it might serve as some level of protection.
Sadly, a full text search of the King James Bible fails to turn up either the term "copyleft" or "gnu". Though there is the "Gnu Testament", but I don't think that will convince anyone. (Though there may be a connection. Amazon.com tells me that : "Customers interested in The Linux Bible: The Gnu Testament may also be interested in: Free for Christians " Everything is for Christians. Everything is free. . Though that web page seems lacking in much in the way of "Free" software. )
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.
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.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:Fight this with private property arguments (Score:4, Informative)
So I'm sorry, you can't use property rights to fight this, you CAN however use copyright law and patent law.
The day we all accept that IP is, indeed "Property" is the day we have lost to the corperations.
Re:Fight this with private property arguments (Score:4, Informative)
Jesus H. Christ! Do we have to get into this pendantry every time the word copyright is mentioned on Slashdot?
Yes, you're right. I am mistaken. Authors don't own their work. They do have an time limited exclusive right to their work. That copyright can be bought, sold, leased, traded, given away, mortgaged, or held. In other words, they have a property interest. They don't own the work, but they do own the time limited exclusive right to the work. That copyright is in fact and in law property.
The Supreme Court of the United States has seen fit to describe a copyright as being property. Note carefully that the copyright is property separate and distinct from the work. One interesting case to look at would be Dowling vs. United States.
To Congress, SCO = $$$ (Score:3, Interesting)
I spent far, far too long studying politics before I realized how much it absolutely drove me insane, and it's these sorts of things -- complete ineptitude on behalf of this nation's leaders -- that drove me back to compsci. The fact of the matter is that SCO looks like dollar-bills to politicians, and open source looks like some strange threat to democracy (the same way they view 3rd parties).
I fully expect, and will be very pissed off when/if it happens, Congress to side with SCO's lobbying and proposals.
Is THIS why programming is moving offshore? (Score:4, Interesting)
Remember when encryption came to browsers, and you had to certify that you were in the U.S. before you could download Netscape?
I'm thinking that there must be a fair number of software companies that are watching the U.S. government today and are thinking that similar export restrictions could once again become a significant problem.
I can see a day - say after Al Quaida manages an actual attack via the Internet - when Dick Cheney's mob makes it illegal to sell American software to Foreigners.
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 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.
If you're going to write your CongressCritter (Score:5, Informative)
This is obviously just the tip of the iceburg. Anyone have more?
Hookers (Score:5, Funny)
Way to go SCO!!!!
Scary... (Score:5, Interesting)
Copyrights for 75 years? No, Mickey is already 75... let's make 120... Music sales is down? A new tax for CDR, tell people that downloading is thief... who cares if the music is shit? You are a consumer... the new hollywood blockbuster failed? the fucking consumers sending SMS messages and talking to friends that the movie is garbage, destroying a very well planned (and expensive) marketing plan... how dare you have an oppinion? shut up and buy, or else you are a communist, a terrorist or some other "ist"
Due the trail left by others I don't think that SCO is doomed to failure... I can see even a chance of victory...
scary...
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.
How can it be possible.... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
He reminds me... (Score:4, Funny)
Come on, SCO. We know, we know. Here's a blanket, you poor, poor man. Have some hot coffee, and a nice warm plate of turkey and gravy. You remember Linus? Your social worker? We were all worried about you. We heard you yelling and carrying on. Linus is glad to see you.
"He's full of... LIES! He's one of them!"
There, there. Linus is your friend, remember? He gave you all that nice Open Source medication--
"Tried to POISON me, he DID! He, he stole those magic pills from ME! You hear me? ARF ARF! Call the guards! Guards! Help me, this man POISONED ME!"
I understand. You're cold and confused. Off your medication. There, there... we'll make it all better. Now, hand me that butter knife, put poor Mrs. User down, and we'll have a nice chat..."
"LIES! ALL LIES! I'LL SUE YOU ALL!!!"
Oh dear. Well, he'll go to sleep eventually. Just keep an eye on him so he doesn't hurt any of the the others, and he'll be fine. Mrs. User, can you just be patient and humor him for a while? He's had a bad business deal, and he's all out of sorts.
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.
Open Source != GPL (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
Despite what it does have, MS does not have a monopoly on ill-informed, greedy executives willing to make a play for cash. The SCO debacle would have happened with or without MS, plain and simple.
Re:Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
What if Linux Contains SCO Code?
Then it will be gladly removed, once identified.
If true, any normal business would deal with it, except we all know how cheap linux users/coders can be.
And, not many people would blame them.
However... how would you feel about being forced to pay for something you don't want ?
Nobody wants illegitimate code in Linux. Everyone is willing to do without the code. Yet, SCO is trying to game the system... by not identifying what it believes to be problematic code.
Why?
Because they can't make you pay for something you aren't using. And, if they identify the code, it will be removed. And... so would their potential income.
Its the Linux Bigots in the world that will destroy the software movement. They dont know how to market, or even how to code very well.
The software movement started dieing when MS stopped including BASIC in the OS. This was their first move towards making programming a commercial activity .
Open Source, and Linux, puts software development tools back in the hands of every computer user that wants them and is actually causing a resurgence in the software movement.
Their strengths are in their shear numbers, and the fact that they value their work at nothing (which would be true for the majority of coders)..
Last time I looked, Linux users were outnumbered almost 10 to 1 by Windows users. And, I bill out at $50 an hour, I'm sure my customers would disagree with your assessment about that being "nothing".
Stupidity reinforcing stupidity.
That happens. I don't believe this to be the case... nor is it specific to Linux.
Im sure some Holier-than-thou I know everything but I dont have a real job linux user will come up and try to argue with what I've said.
Right on the money... unless you count the $60,000 I made in 2003 running my own business and only working 30 hours a week as a job.
;-)
But to tell you the truth, I've heard it. I've heard it a 1000 times on this fucking website, and It didnt make sense the first time I heard it, and it just keeps getting louder and whinier.
Then... go away.
Read a book... Get a life... Listen to music... make love... whatever.
Why in the hell would you voluntarily do shit you don't like?
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.