Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Groklaw Shifts Gears, Now Stressing Preservation

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the think-of-the-posterity dept.

Linux 123

dan of the north notes a change of direction at Groklaw. Pamela Jones (PJ) writes: "I think we need to use this time to perfect our work and ensure Groklaw's preservation. It will require shutting down the daily articles and News Picks, at least for the forseeable future, but I'm convinced it's important to do it. One of the core purposes of Groklaw has always been to create a reliable record for historians and law schools to use our materials to teach and inform. ... I choose to make sure our work as fully reliable, comprehensive and, to the degree humanly possible, permanent. ... Groklaw's collection of materials is really valuable. I'd like to ensure that it survives. ... We've covered the SCO litigations since May of 2003, and it's the only complete record of this important phase in IT history."

cancel ×

123 comments

First post!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26348223)

Yeah. Whatcha think about that?

Re:First post!! (4, Funny)

ianare (1132971) | more than 5 years ago | (#26348675)

Surely your amazing prowess is unsurpassed in the known universe.
Women want you, men bow their heads, and all of creation wants to be just like you.

Truly, the Übermensch has arrived !!

Re:First post!! (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26350019)

Let's hope this first post is preserved, so future generations will have a complete record of who had first post in this story.

Complete? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26348295)

It ain't over yet!

Re:Complete? (1)

sgbett (739519) | more than 5 years ago | (#26348507)

In other news... "Groklaw DDOS'd by spiders!"

Re:Complete? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26352307)

So basically, IBM is scaling back in a recession? Whouda thunk it?

Frist Ninnle Pissed (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26348307)

Ninnle's the one!

Join the Obama Revolution! Use Ninnle Linux on the desktop!

Only complete record? (3, Insightful)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 5 years ago | (#26348347)

If Groklaw has the only complete record of the SCO ligitation then some court archivist should be looking for work.

Re:Only complete record? (5, Insightful)

bostonkarl (795447) | more than 5 years ago | (#26348445)

Naw, it is just that SCO has made so many outlandish claims that there is a mountain of material to refute them all. Kudos, Groklaw. What an amazing blog. What an example of what online collaboration can achieve.

Re:Only complete record? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26348993)

Kudos, Groklaw.

You are calling them a granola bar? Or you are pleased with them so you want to give them a granola bar? I know granola bars are good and wholesome but I think they deserve a little better than that.

Re:Only complete record? (1)

alexborges (313924) | more than 5 years ago | (#26349947)

Nonsense!

The Kudos Bar is clearly a precious gift for philosopher kings!

Re:Only complete record? (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 5 years ago | (#26350911)

It would be nice if they did a dump of their database or something and put it up as a torrent. Let the information be free. Even if someone mirrored the site, they would probably still go to Groklaw.

Re:Only complete record? (5, Informative)

Col. Klink (retired) (11632) | more than 5 years ago | (#26348483)

The record of SCO also includes press coverage, lawyer biographies, etc. It also spans across multiple litigants and across multiple courts in multiple jurisdictions. No single court will have a complete archive of SCO filings, and none will have press coverage and commentary. So yes, groklaw is the ONLY archive that includes the complete story.

Re:Only complete record? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26349047)

In addition, many of the press releases, blog entries, etc. that SCO posted over the years have been withdrawn from their web site and/or revised.

In many cases, Groklaw made a copy of the relevant pages at the time that they were relevant, so that later revisionist history could be seen for what it was.

Re:Only complete record? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26352391)

So why is it not available for download? To Mirror?

Re:Only complete record? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26354925)

And it's the only one that is completely _public_.

Re:Only complete record? (4, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 5 years ago | (#26348501)

If Groklaw has the only complete record of the SCO ligitation then some court archivist should be looking for work.

It is not that original materials are not available -- rather Groklaw has collected the materials from multiple cases, multiple courts and converted documents to text.

Re:Only complete record? (4, Insightful)

IceCreamGuy (904648) | more than 5 years ago | (#26348541)

Oh yeah, I forgot, the entire thing took place in a single courtroom! Seriously though, while the court records will be very important, I think they do have a point, I mean there were press releases, public discussion and third parties involved. I think relying on the court record for a complete historical documentation of the entire fiasco would leave a lot out for future generations.

Re:Only complete record? (4, Insightful)

MasterOfMagic (151058) | more than 5 years ago | (#26348607)

Not to mention analysis, reaction, and discussion. No court record includes that.

Re:Only complete record? (1)

shadwstalkr (111149) | more than 5 years ago | (#26352521)

What kind of education would future law students get if the relevant discussions from this very forum were not archived and available?

Re:Only complete record? (1)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353633)

...would leave a lot out for future generations.

The only people I can imagine that would be interested in such detailed material would be those studying law. As such I imagine the useful lifetime will be rather short, 100 years max, because laws change significantly on such timescales.

Finished (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26348359)

uesday, July 29, 2008

just a thought...
Current mood: anxious

Stud dogs go about the whole sex thing rather differently than primates (or equines). Unlike us, male canines don't have an orgasm that involves a short, intense ejaculation. Instead, once they have become fully erect, they will have a continuous orgasm for from 10 to 45 minutes or longer. The "standard" procedure for dogs, when they are mating, is that the male "ties" with the bitch - which means that, after he has penetrated fully, his penis will develop a knot at its base that is several times wider than the rest of his shaft.

For reference, a 80 pound Golden stud dog might have, let's say, a cock that is 7 or 8 inches long when erect - but his knot will be at least as big around as a tennis ball. This knot swells inside the bitch, and so long as he remains erect the dogs are "tied." No, this isn't painful for her - canine females long ago developed an entire set of muscular supports for this process. Generally, once they are tied, most stud dogs prefer to step off and over, so he and the bitch are tail-to-tail. Theories abound on why this evolved - I have yet to see one that was truly convincing. Anyway, they'll stand like this, with the male having a continuous orgasm during the whole tie - until he starts to shrink and they pop apart. Bitches also have orgasms, and she'll likely have quite a few during the tie, as well - research has shown that her orgasms are essential to increasing the chances of pregnancy, due to muscular contractions.

Anyway. if a guy like me has a stud dog partner, one form of intimacy is for him to tie with us, anally. As young teenagers, many of us learned the hard way about the knot, and the tie - particularly back in pre-interweb days. So we'd suddenly find ourselves locked together, with this tennis-ball width cock inside us. Nowadays, I suspect most young zoos know all about this. However, some folks still have eyes bigger than their stomach, err their you-know-what.

It would not be accurate to say that I have a stream of visitors who show up at my house just for sex with my canine partners. However, it is true that I do not exercise any sort of unilateral control/ownership over the relationships my canine boys might develop with other people - they are adults, and if they desire to get frisky with another two-legger and I judge that the person is respectful and unlikely to do anything mean or stupid, I have no moral ground on which to say "oh, no, you aren't allowed - he can only have sex with me." That just makes no sense, so if there's a time when a friend is visiting and there's a spark between them and one of my partners, I'm ok with that. In truth, I think it's great to have the boys' enjoy other positive relationships and I love to see them happy, whatever the circumstances.

Many years ago, my friend Commander Taco was visiting - a zoo who had been active with his own stud dog for quite a few years. His boy was a breed that is not small, but is also somewhat known by old-school zoos as being, well, on average not so well-endowed relative to their body size. This friend had tied with his partner on a number of occasions - and he often talked about how intense and rewarding the experience was, for both of them. That's great, I said - while thinking that he'd probably not fare so well with a larger breed.

As it turns out, Taco and one of my canine friends hit it off quite clearly right from the get-go - the chemistry was there and the two of them seemed like they'd known each other for ages. After several visits, I could see that they were sort of getting closer and closer - my friend Taco was worried that I'd feel he was somehow intruding into my relationship with this handsome stud dog - who had been in my own family for close to a decade. Of course not, I told him - if you guys hit it off and things get steamy, I'd hardly throw cold water on it just so I can be all possessive and insecure. HOWEVER, I warned him, that handsome boy with whom you're making goo-goo eyes is much bigger than your own long-time partner.

I tried to be nice about this, but some zoos get their nose out of joint if you suggest their beloved might not be the most-endowed canine (or equine, or whatever) around. Taco was a bit like that - and right off the bat tried to convince me his boy was "really quite large for his body size," and who was I to argue? I did warn him that the stud dog he was considering, in my family, was somewhat over-endowed for his body size - and he was in the range of 120 pounds of low-bodyfat muscle. Beh, my friend said, no problem - I know what I'm doing. . .

Later that evening, after I'd gone to bed, I woke to the sound of toenails on the hardwood floor. There was also a bit of panting, a giggle here and there - not hard to figure out what was going on. Feeling a sense of impending doom, I made my presence known and sort of lurked in the background, sitting on the sofa and enjoying the huge, nearly-full moon casting shadows on the farm. The two boys were doing some sort of foreplay - it seemed cute to me, but I did (once again) warn Taco that this particular stud dog was also rather aggressive in his breeding - he'd sired many litters of wonderful pups, in his own career, and knew quite well how to get a proper tie with even inexperienced or skittish bitches. Yeah, yeah - my Taco was clearly not thinking with the had between his shoulders, but the one between his legs.

In a flash, the big stud dog was mounted on Taco - and this time he wasn't just going through the motions, or playing. In just a few thrusts, he was inside - and with all that muscle, he held himself tight as he began to swell. It doesn't take long - maybe 20 seconds. I'm still watching, from the sofa, somewhere between shocked and bemused. For the first ten seconds or so, Taco is quiet and still as a winter night - not a sound save the deep grunting from my stud dog as he was swelling with each heartbeat.

Then, reality started to intrude (pun intended). Commander Taco started to make this sort of whimpering sound - no words, just a low moan. Too late to turn back, I knew, so I held my tongue. Then, as my stud dog really began to take on his full size (which I knew from years of firsthand enjoyment was just under 10 inches in length with a knot just shy of softball size), my two-legged friend began to realize the error of his ways. This stud dog was, quite likely, at least double the width of his normal canine partner - and 3 or 4 inches longer. And, as reality is dawning on him, each heartbeat is causing the cock inside him to get bigger. . . and bigger. . . and bigger.

By now, Taco's positively crying - literally crying like a baby. No words, just sort of a quiet blubbering. He's smart enough to know there's no backing out now - and he didn't try anything stupid like pulling loose (which can, indeed, cause massive rectal tearing if done in haste - trust me, not fun). At this point my canine friend casually steps off from the usual "doggie style" position and, with years of practice, adjusts himself into the butt-to-butt position. And to add insult to (literal) injury, my canine friend has now plastered an absolutely massive grin on his face - when we say "shit-eating grin," this is it He's having the time of his life, tied with a new friend he's met, just starting into an orgasm that will go on for nearly 20 minutes. Not only does he not really know that his **** buddy is feeling like someone's put the better part of a baseball bat up his ass. . . I'm quite sure he doesn't care.

Just for good measure, I took a photo of the gigantic smile on the stud dog's face - nothing more than that, just his face and the grin to end all grins. Click.

My two-legged friend Taco is now officially gibbering - it's really a verb, I didn't know that before just then. He's somehow begging for it to "stop, oh please stop" - but every now and then there's an "oh god oh GOD he's amazing" thrown in, before he's back to "oh PLEASE make it stop OOOH stop stop stop." This goes on, as is par for the course, for just shy of 20 minutes, at which point my stud dog friend begins to subside, pops free (with a characteristically loud and gushing dis-connection), and lies down to clean himself up and help his cock back into its sheath.

In contrast, my two-legged friend has simply fallen over, and curled up into a fetal ball. Well, I think to myself, I don't see any blood. . . oh, wait, I do see blood, but not really that much so it's probably ok. I get him a blanket and try to offer kindness without intruding on his pain, and to be honest without s******ing. The words "I told you so" are hovering out there, but need not be spoken at that somewhat awkward time. I do ask: "are you going to be ok, or should we head to hospital?" In between ragged breaths, he responds "no hospital, not going to die" - and indeed my own judgment is that he's far from dying, though he may feel like that would be preferable to the pain he's in.

I get him a blanket, and a pillow and get him comfortable right there on the hardwood floor of the kitchen. And our canine Casanova? Well he's cleaned up, wandered over to give a big, wet, shameless kiss to his worse-for-the-wear sexual partner and he's already asleep on the sofa, snoring - with grin still present on his face. Remorse? Regret? Not a chance!

The next day, I was impressed to see that my guest was up and at the kitchen table, with his well-endowed playmate from the previous night sharing a dish of eggs and toast, when I came downstairs with the rest of the canine crew. Impressed, that is, until I noticed he wasn't in any rush to get up from the table - ever. Turns out, Taco had indeed suffered some serious internal bruising - in a few days, the discoloration has spread from his lower back (which still makes me laugh, sorry, because I can visualize exactly how far in that cock had gone and, sure enough, that's where the bruise mellows out - a good bit of the way up his back and towards his ribs) down his legs, and clear to his ankles. Both legs. It's spectacular. He's walking like a rehabbed accident victim for several days, and for weeks afterwards he looks as if he'd ridden a horse for too long (again, laughing as I type). It was more than a month before he'd healed up more or less ok, and even then I'd see him wince if he bent down too quickly.

Is it wrong for me to think this is funny? If it is, so be it - it's ****ing funny. The transformation from swaggering "oh I can take that big boy, I know what I'm doing" to hunched-over victim of a mind-expanding lesson in what "big" means when applied to stud dogs - all in the blink of an eye. Yes, it's definitely funny.

Of course, in those early weeks, he promised me he would NEVER do something like that again - NEVER tie with a dog bigger than his own long-term partner. And, he asked me with genuine indignation, how could I keep tying with that dog who had torn him up so badly? Didn't I know the danger I was in? I responded, casually, that I appreciated his concerns but, to put perspective on things he should remember that his dog compared to that stud dog who tore him up so badly, in terms of relative size, the same way that the tearer-upper compared to my Dane partner at the time. His eyes grew wide - comprehension dawned. . . "you don't tie with that monster, do you?" I glanced over at my beloved Dane who, looking up at me, thumped his tail a few times in flagrant collusion with my own thoughts. "Who, me? Tie with that massive dog? Now what kind of crazy fool would do such a thing?"

Im troubled (2, Interesting)

slugtastic (1437569) | more than 5 years ago | (#26348383)

Will be there something to cover after the SCO trial is over?

Re:Im troubled (2, Informative)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 5 years ago | (#26348835)

Which trial are you referring to? There are multiple cases still pending.

Re:Im troubled (2, Funny)

slugtastic (1437569) | more than 5 years ago | (#26349491)

There are cases in pending? I'm afraid SCO lawyers are going to be involved in mass suicide after the current trial is over.

Re:Im troubled (2)

micheas (231635) | more than 5 years ago | (#26349835)

We can only hope,

But unfortunately we are more likely to have them appointed to the Attorney General's office than commit suicide.

Re:Im troubled (4, Insightful)

badasscat (563442) | more than 5 years ago | (#26350065)

Which trial are you referring to? There are multiple cases still pending.

What cases? The only one that matters, SCO already lost. They do not own the copyrights that everything else rests on.

They're appealing that, but a decision already exists. And given that, there are no cases currently "pending" that I know of - Novell had already waived IBM's licensing responsibilities, and they reiterated that after winning their case against SCO. So SCO has no basis on which to sue IBM. And they owe Novell a bunch of money - probably more than they can afford and stay in business.

There might be a few minor claims remaining related to financial things that SCO has against IBM, but it's no longer a major case even if so. More of a minor business dispute.

If SCO somehow wins its appeal, then sure. But the one case upon which everything else hinges is already decided; it would need to actually be overturned for any other cases to go forward. And judges don't like to overturn other judges without a really good reason. (And as PJ points out, it's not like SCO can present any further evidence - the new judge looks at the same evidence.)

Lanham Act violations (2, Informative)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 5 years ago | (#26350565)

Link [groklaw.net]

Re:Im troubled (1)

jjohn_h (674302) | more than 5 years ago | (#26354785)

>>> What cases? The only one that matters, SCO already lost. They do not own the copyrights that everything else rests on. >>>

No, the IBM case is not based on copyrights. SCO concedes that IBM contributions to the Linux kernel were IBM own code but they insist that IBM *needed* SCO's permission to contribute. Contractual issue.

Re:Im troubled (2, Insightful)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 5 years ago | (#26349633)

I would like to hope that they cover software patent cases, RIAA/MPAA cases and any other relevant technology law cases that might come up in the future.

Re:Im troubled (1)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353677)

Will be there something to cover after the SCO trial is over?

Sure.

We'll need somewhere to discuss the antics of whatever proxy Microsoft chooses to use next.

SCO Who? (3, Informative)

WillRobinson (159226) | more than 5 years ago | (#26348411)

While the corpse is still twitching, we are waiting for the formal burning, so its good that Groklaw keep up with the formalities.

And while it has been good to follow along, I agree it will be more for academia than for the casual web user.

Good Luck to PJ.

It's a post-Groklaw web now (5, Insightful)

halivar (535827) | more than 5 years ago | (#26348627)

Those were halcyon days, back when Groklaw was in eveyr technorati's bookmarks, and all nerd-rage found a unifying enemy in SCO. 6 years later, Linux is free and clear, the Alex de Tocqueville institute is forgotten, as is Dan Lyons, Daniel Wallace, Maureen O'Gara, the Yankee Group, and the guy who did tech news and SCO-shilling who is so forgotten I can't even find him on Google anymore (a testament to how old this stuff is: I read about him every day and I can't even remember or find his name).

Back then, it was the few and informed fighting against the ignorance of an entire market of empty-headed, buzzword-filled suits. It stoked my ego to have a "cause" to fight for, even if it was exclusively by arguing with trolls on the internet.

But the job's done. I'm not aware of any rampant corporate FOSS-phobia (every big player's got their hands in the pot, now). SCO's dead. Linux lives. And it survives merely on its merits, not because of any inherent philosophical superiority. Technorati and business pro's alike (it's a Venn diagram; I know) choose the best tool for the job. The old arguments are, for the most part, dead.

I think the end of Groklaw as a significant force in FOSS started around the time of the "GrokWars." It's obvious to me that if allies have enough time to fight each other (over stupid stuff, at that), then whatever common enemy it was that held them together is either dead or irrelevant.

While Groklaw had some significant voice in the GPL v3 debate, I think that was its last hurrah. Today, we simply don't need Groklaw anymore.

Of course, I would call that success of mission.

Re:It's a post-Groklaw web now (4, Informative)

Etrias (1121031) | more than 5 years ago | (#26348961)

...and SCO-shilling who is so forgotten I can't even find him on Google anymore

Could it be that you refer to Rob Enderle? Interesting, but old bit about him here [tgdaily.com]

Re:It's a post-Groklaw web now (2, Insightful)

halivar (535827) | more than 5 years ago | (#26349153)

You got it! Rob Enderle, complete tool-bag.

Re:It's a post-Groklaw web now (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 5 years ago | (#26351597)

You should give him at least the chance and read what he was writing. In Germany, there is a saying: "Eines Mannes Rede ist keines Mannes Rede, man muss sie hoeren alle beede" (One man's word is none man's word, you have to listen to both).
If the story of death threats he got is only half true, there would have to be much begging for excusion by some people.

Re:It's a post-Groklaw web now (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 5 years ago | (#26352719)

I read what he had to say. I can believe every word of his claims and consider himself unfit to do journalism. He basically says he got attacked publicly for saying really stupid stuff so he doubled down. He admits to essentially making claims based on no evidence because he was emotionally worked up.

When he got strongly attacked he owed it to his readers to double and triple check his facts. His articles from 2002-7 on the SCO claims and open source were simply stupid. Once he became a major figure he lost the right to that ignorant.

Re:It's a post-Groklaw web now (2, Informative)

rumblin'rabbit (711865) | more than 5 years ago | (#26351815)

Rob Enderl's wikipedia [wikipedia.org] history is entertaining, going from long and critical [wikipedia.org] to short and sweet [wikipedia.org] in one revision.

As is often case for controversial subjects, the Wikipedia history tells a better story than current entry itself.

Re:It's a post-Groklaw web now (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 5 years ago | (#26352727)

An example of censorship. The long article was all opinion but had good links.

Re:It's a post-Groklaw web now (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 5 years ago | (#26351055)

Having read through that piece, I can only come to one conclusion:

I have discovered through your cite just how much of a whiny, immature, self-loving, responsibility-avoiding asshat Rob Enderle really is...

Bleah.

/P

Re:It's a post-Groklaw web now (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 5 years ago | (#26351671)

Just read that 'article', what a douche bag this guy is. He attacks people, calls them idiots and such, gets back what he deserves, then he is forced to admit he was a douche bag, but you know, he is too hurt by all those 'criminals'. Why are they criminals, because of their death threats?

Notice that in that entire 'article' there was nothing mentioned about SCO acting criminally. Aren't SCO criminals? Well, I guess SCO didn't issue any empty death threats to anyone.... Oh, wait! [groklaw.net] .

Yes, there are assholes on either side, death threats are stupid, but this does not change a fact: Rob Enderle is a douche and a useless brainless whiner.

Re:It's a post-Groklaw web now (4, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#26348999)

I think the end of Groklaw as a significant force in FOSS.... Today, we simply don't need Groklaw anymore.

There's no law that says that Groklaw has to have anything to do with FOSS. It can live on just fine as a site which covers legal developments of interest to its geeky audience... and yes, we do need that. Badly. There is no such thing as too many sources providing clear and level-headed coverage of what's going on in our legal system.

Re:It's a post-Groklaw web now (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26350645)

There's no law that says that Groklaw has to have anything to do with FOSS.

The only other legal thing Slashdottians are interested in is stealing music, and NewYorkCountryLawyer has that sewn up.

Re:It's a post-Groklaw web now (1)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 5 years ago | (#26351133)

> It can live on just fine as a site which covers legal developments of interest to its geeky audience...

But apparently has no intention of doing that. Starting to look like SCO was right for once, Groklaw was funded to fight IBM's side outside the courthouse. Their own Nazgul were more than capable of handling things inside court but the fight wasn't ever going to really be there, this was a FUD war in the press and Groklaw could do that with far more freedom of action than IBM's official PR machinery.

Nobody should believe the larger war ends with SCO. They were merely a sock puppet for Microsoft (cheered on officially or not) by pretty much every proprietary vendor with a financial stake in the old ways. The question is which tactic will be used next. Will Novell be launched against us as the next SCO/sockpuppet or will Balmer come out from behind the curtain and launch a patent apocalypse himself. But the war isn't over until Microsoft, Oracle, Cisco and the every billion plus software house lies ruined or transformed and the patent trolls stopped somehow.

But Groklaw won't be covering the rest of story, their part is now concluded. They did good work though and will be missed.

Re:It's a post-Groklaw web now (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 5 years ago | (#26352739)

The tech public was openly siding with IBM. IBM could have much more effectively gathered witnesses and checked facts themselves. They are perfectly allowed to hold open meetings with the people who came forward and self deposed.

Re:It's a post-Groklaw web now (4, Insightful)

wrecked (681366) | more than 5 years ago | (#26349199)

While it's novelty may have faded, this is hardly a "post-Groklaw" web now. "Post-SCO", maybe. Groklaw is still one of the best sites for litigation analysis that I have seen (and yes, IAAL). While the SCO wars may have created Groklaw, Groklaw has covered other "intellectual property" issues such as the ODF/OOXML disputes.

Re:It's a post-Groklaw web now (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#26349323)

and all nerd-rage found a unifying enemy in SCO.

Don't you mean that all nerd-rage was distracted from Microsoft's attacks by the front organisation that was SCO?

Re:It's a post-Groklaw web now (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 5 years ago | (#26350559)

Alex de Tocqueville institute is forgotten, as is Dan Lyons, Daniel Wallace, Maureen O'Gara, the Yankee Group,

Funny, just yesterday someone on slashdot was linking to a security book written by a "senior analyst" at Yankee Group.

Re:It's a post-Groklaw web now (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 5 years ago | (#26351595)

Those were halcyon days, back when Groklaw was in eveyr technorati's bookmarks, and all nerd-rage found a unifying enemy in SCO.

Not being familiar with the word "halcyon", I looked it up and got: "1. Calm and peaceful; tranquil. 2. Prosperous; golden: halcyon years."

I don't think that has quite the intended meaning for a time of war.

Re:It's a post-Groklaw web now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26352525)

"Our current use of halcyon days tends to be nostalgic and recalling of the seemingly endless sunny days of youth"
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/168000.html

Re:It's a post-Groklaw web now (2, Informative)

sdkit (708082) | more than 5 years ago | (#26352143)

...the Alex de Tocqueville institute is forgotten, as is Dan Lyons,...

That's not entirely accurate. Dan Lyons went on to become Fake Steve Jobs and you could argue he's more famous now than then.

Re:It's a post-Groklaw web now (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 5 years ago | (#26352433)

There will be many more lawsuits. For example with KDE there are substantial questions of standing to file a lawsuit against GPL violations, the kernel may have similar problems. As open source code has gotten all over the web in example which are getting "cut and pasted" there are going to be huge lawsuits about what exactly is a derived work.

Right now the legal world is quiet. Enjoy it won't last.

Its a BoycottNovell.com web now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26352531)

We need Roy to combat the complacent and now laissez-faire atittude of the free software community towards the current dangers facing us now.

But you are wrong.
Groklaw is still needed beyond SCO.

The next few years we will have more needs for legalese in the FOSS world (not just When Nathan Myrvold comes calling) and they could become THE reference place for any court related news stories. Like they are now.

When the SFLC sues Verizon and Extreme Networks for GPL Infringement and you want more info, where do you go?

For most of us, Groklaw = law + FLOSS
(and let's face it, most of us hate lawyers which makes this weird)
I hope after they tie up SCO loose ends, it continues.

Re:It's a post-Groklaw web now (1)

jalefkowit (101585) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353473)

the Alex de Tocqueville institute is forgotten, as is Dan Lyons...

Lyons actually went on to create the mega-popular Fake Steve Jobs blog [wikipedia.org] , which he spun into a book deal [amazon.com] . So it's a bit of a reach to call him "forgotten".

Re:It's a post-Groklaw web now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26355309)

What you meant to say was, that you hate all this GPL stuff and wish it would go away, and want to pretend that it has.

If you aren't aware of the many and varied ways in which large corporations - mainly Microsoft - are still seeking to undermine the FOSS movement (and the GPL in particular) you need to follow Grocklaw more closely.

It hasn't gone away.

Okay, so... (1)

Monkey_Genius (669908) | more than 5 years ago | (#26348707)

you backup and archive the site on a daily (hourly) basis and continue to post articles. Why shutdown the whole thing? This makes no sense. Maybe they're taking some cues from \.-sister site, Linux.com.

Accuracy (5, Funny)

troll8901 (1397145) | more than 5 years ago | (#26348731)

PJ said in the first interview [linux.org] (31 July 2003):

"I was forever reading Slashdot comments about legal news and most of the comments would be way off..."

I'm shocked!

Re:Accuracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26349571)

Offtopic I know, but what is this quote about in parents linked article:

"Don't forget: one of the most damning pieces of evidence in the MS trial was something a geek noticed and pointed out."?

Re:Accuracy (2, Funny)

dedazo (737510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26350801)

IANAL, but she might be right.

Call me cynical but... (1, Troll)

astralbat (828541) | more than 5 years ago | (#26348735)

Doesn't this lend credit to the idea that perhaps PJ was hired solely to cover the SCO trial?

Was her mysterious identity ever uncovered?

Re:Call me cynical but... (1)

Bootsy Collins (549938) | more than 5 years ago | (#26348911)

The accusation was that she was an operative for IBM. SCO v. IBM still exists -- although if the judgment on the Novell case stands, not for long.

Re:Call me cynical but... (4, Insightful)

burning-toast (925667) | more than 5 years ago | (#26349233)

Doesn't this lend credit to the idea that perhaps PJ was hired solely to cover the SCO trial?

Was her mysterious identity ever uncovered?

Why in hell should a person subject their identity and private information to the whim of the trolls on the Internet in any capacity, just to "prove" they aren't hiding something sinister? Try proving there WAS something sinister, I'll certainly take that complaint more credibly.

Internet anonymity is here to stay (as it should be) as there is no proof positive way to identify other Internet going users without subjecting them to very real risks in meat-space (stalkers, or worse). Come to think of it there are very very few ways to positively identify people in meat-space (even with fingerprints and SSN cards) let alone verify their intentions...

It is ALWAYS up to you, the reader, browser, and consumer to attempt to determine truth and fiction based on your own balance of values, experiences, and interpretations. Use your own trust network to find that out for yourself. Come back and stir the pot once you have something more legitimate than a suspicion about someone else's suspicion about someone else's theory. Second hand truth is better than third hand theory in my opinion.

If you think there is bias in her reporting then go ahead and think there is bias in her reporting. Seek another truth if you believe it to exist. However, in that same stroke, the air of credibility seems to be on PJ's side to many many people. I have found minimal reason to be concerned personally with whether or not she WAS hired. I'm just glad to be informed of her take on the matter.

However, you are perfectly free to be paranoid about her identity all you like, but expecting her identity to be proven in an environment of suspicion is just stupidity. Being proven so you feel better about it is simple idiocy.

Fanatics and conspiracy nuts will always be good at inadvertently burying the truth when it comes out in a sea of accusations anyways because people are blinded by their opinions. So what does it matter? The truth could already have been said.

- Toast

P.S. Nothing personal, I'm having my second Monday of the week here at work...

Re:Call me cynical but... (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 5 years ago | (#26352207)

Internet anonymity is here to stay

And so is the desire to remove anonymity. Both are acceptable.

Re:Call me cynical but... (2, Insightful)

burning-toast (925667) | more than 5 years ago | (#26354835)

And so is the desire to remove anonymity. Both are acceptable.

Anonymity should be an even exchange for credibility as I see it. Since you could meet me in meat-space and I could lie to you about everything from my identity down to my intentions what can you prove simply by knowing my "name" or "address"? Hell, I could even gather up some paid "friends" to spread some good rumors about what my intentions are too (just for good measure). Volunteering your real identity to add credibility to something you say is nothing more than a token gesture to me. The rest of what you say has to jive too.

On the flip side, protecting my real identity when I'm online is relatively important at all times to my real physical safety and well being. I won't consciously make it easier for some nut-job which doesn't like what I have to say to find out who I really am. And I'm not even a high profile target. Knowing who I am reflects nothing of the credibility of what comes out of my mouth in all reality.

Once you have been misdirected to arguing the facts of the presenter instead of the facts of the matter everything you will do is an exercise in straw-man assembly and inspection and rarely will you ever get anywhere productive at all.

- Toast

P.S. Thought for the day: When you argue with someone. Are you the type which calls their character into question before or after you call their argument it's self into question?

Re:Call me cynical but... (1)

astralbat (828541) | more than 5 years ago | (#26356437)

Why in hell should a person subject their identity and private information to the whim of the trolls on the Internet in any capacity, just to "prove" they aren't hiding something sinister? Try proving there WAS something sinister, I'll certainly take that complaint more credibly.

You've got the wrong end of the stick entirely. I wasn't suggesting that she reveal her identity. I was merely outlining an alternative truth. Personally, I can choose and decide for myself what to believe and I'm nothing like a "conspiracy nut" as you so delicately put it. The fact of the matter is Groklaw is quite an extensive source when it comes to the SCO case details. Perhaps it's just a blog, but some people might see it as more than that.

Let's suppose for a moment that she was/is under some kind of financial agreement with IBM, then that changes things entirely. I am by no means suggesting this is the case but regarding it as a possibility - especially given the bias in her posts.

Maybe my post was trolling, but it's something I have the right to do and you should not undermine. Something more constructive towards the debate would have been appreciated rather than contempt and mockery.

Re: Conspiracy theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26357491)

Well, the conspiracy theory is basically:

[Exemplar International] + [MedAbility Software] + [Groklaw / Pamela Jones] = Sale of products and services

Start by reading this press release at http://www.exintl.com/web-archive/documents/2003-04-14.htm [exintl.com] and look for CONTACT: Pamela Jones, Director, Public Affairs, MedAbiliti, +1-914-761-7423, fax - +1-866-792-5299, pjones@medabiliti.com

Then follow the conspiracy trail at http://www.exintl.com/web-archive/documents/index.html [exintl.com]

Happy digging!

Re:Call me cynical but... (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 5 years ago | (#26350365)

Of, if this is true, what does it matter? PR firms, lawyers, etc are not by definition bad. The lone crusader fighting evil is not necessarily good. OSS is not a battle of the little guy against the big corporation, where the little guy is triumphant. It is about the big guy pushing new technology in an effort to solidify it's dominance. The little guy was trying to use what it thought was good copyright law to fight the big guy. We fought the law and the law won.

This is also a classic case of history being written by the victor, so nothing changes there. It is a case of old tech losing value, and some old tech companies trying to maintain the value through any means necessary. Look at the car companies with their 100 year old internal combustion engine, complaining that those new fangled hybrid engines are cheating them out of their god given profits.

So as ambiguous as this case is, what is the problem with a little more ambiguity. Sometimes the big guys fight, and the little guy manage to end up with a small victory as well. Cynical would be wondering if giving IBM such power, and MS even more incentive to assimilate, modify, and destroy, is such a good thing, no matter how the outcome might have come about.

The idealism that groklaw would only be valid if it was the result of a lone crusader is no cynicism, but disgusting romanticism and melodrama. And the need to uncover the mystery, unmask those who vanquished, 'who is that masked women', is more of the same. Those of us who are cynical and jaded don't care.

Re:Call me cynical but... (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 5 years ago | (#26352779)

What was every ambiguous about this case? You had one side lying and making stuff up and the other trying to disprove lies.

I'm a bit confused by this. (5, Insightful)

Bootsy Collins (549938) | more than 5 years ago | (#26348859)

I read PJ's post on Groklaw, linked to in the article summary. It seems as if she's effectively defining Groklaw's purpose as being to deal with the threat to free and open-source software brought on by the SCO cases; that being so, if the threat from SCO is over, there's not much to do except to make sure that the tons of archived information is correct, and to work to make it easily accessible to those who might come to need it in the future.

1. Is it really the case that the SCO cases are over? It's true that SCO's cases against IBM, Autozone, and Red Hat are moot if SCO doesn't hold the copyrights they use as the basis for their claim; but SCO plans to appeal the judgment in Novell's favor. Until that appeal is done, it doesn't seem to me to be over.

2. Even assuming the SCO aspect of this situation is over, the fundamental issues here haven't been decided. Essentially, the judgment against SCO means that SCO doesn't have standing to bring a lawsuit against IBM. But if Novell were to become evil, then who's to say they couldn't bring such a lawsuit? The fundamental question of whether Linux infringes on UNIX copyrights has yet to be decided on in court (however ridiculous any of us may feel such a claim to be). That was the issue when Groklaw originally got started, and it's still out there.

3. Furthermore, it's not the only legal issue that could threaten Linux or other FOSS projects in the future. Groklaw has at times addressed issues associated with patents and trade secrets, and those aren't going anywhere. And we still have yet to finish cases in which software companies attempt to invalidate the terms of the GPL, to exculpate themselves from appropriating code from projects licensed under the GPL -- also a topic occasionally covered by Groklaw. I understand that it's PJ's blog, and her life, and the focus of Groklaw is whatever she says it is. But it's still sad, because the decision to define the focus of the resource (for that's what its archives and especially its participant base are) narrowly leaves behind a vacuum at a time when there are still real threats to oppose.

Re:I'm a bit confused by this. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26352395)

Newsflash: "PJ" is IBM.

Re:I'm a bit confused by this. (2, Insightful)

Mspangler (770054) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353475)

to take your points in order;
1) SCO's cases are moot if they do not own the copyrights. They don't have standing to sue. The cases are dead. Even SCO has admitted as much. Since no new evidence can be submitted on appeals, and SCO has no, none, zero, zip written evidence to support their claim that they got the copyrights, and Novell has reams of evidence that copyrights were deliberately excluded from the sale, SCO is wasting everyone's time. Speculation has it they are delaying long enough for (mis)-management to make their getaway with whatever boodle they can sneak off with, then the last one there will file to convert to chapter 7, or complete liquidation.

2) Novell has a contract with IBM. A non-terminable contract. If they were to renege, IBM's lawyers would roll over them like a tide. Furthermore, Novell has already granted IBM a waiver for any code IBM may have inadvertently released. Evil Novell obliterated it's ability to contest anything IBM may have done from that point on out. As for the rest of Unix, the terms of the BSD settlement are now public. Unix is free, with the sole exception of code written by old SCO/caldera/new SCO after Novell sold the Unix business (but not the copyrights). Even is that code were to become available, no-one will ever read it.

3) That point is valid. Very valid. Having failed to kill Linux with copyright, Microsoft will now try to do it with patents. Ballmer has explicitly said so. So Groklaw is not going away, just going into watchful waiting mode while cleaning out the electronic garage and doing some filing.

 

Re:I'm a bit confused by this. (1)

Cutterman (789191) | more than 5 years ago | (#26356517)

Suddenly deciding to turn Groklaw into a mausoleum seems very un-Pj-ish.

After all, there's still a long way to go in the saga and an awful lot of dirt
still to be uncovered.

I reckon someone put the frighteners on her - kidnapped her favourite cat or
threatened to shoot her granny if she didn't tone it down.

The shutoff was too brusque and the "return" too humble.

I smell a rat.

Mac

We need Groklaw for the next war, not the last.. (5, Insightful)

phrackwulf (589741) | more than 5 years ago | (#26348887)

I understand the need to draw down, but I certainly would hate for PJ to totally throw in the towel. She's accomplished something by harnessing the output of the legal system to an FOSS platform in a way Geeks can understand. That is elegant and original and incredibly, incredibly important. What about net neutrality and invasion of privacy and the next organization that decides, "Who cares about legality, we can get away with it." Groklaw is the 11th commandment. Thou shalt not get away with it. The legal system as it is, is the OS of our society. Groklaw is the repository for documentation of that OS and the ways it can be played with or corrupted, the same way exploits can be carried out in computer operating systems. It's stretching a metaphor naturally.

Re:We need Groklaw for the next war, not the last. (4, Funny)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#26349193)

The legal system as it is, is the OS of our society.

That's pretty damned scary.

I have finally understood it! Society is running Windows! That's why the legal system is slow, overly complex, buggy, expensive, designed by marketing I mean campaign contributions, applies itself to things that are not legal problems, and not under the control of the average end users! Suddenly it makes sense.

The legal system as it is, is the OS of our society.

Yeah, that's still pretty scary.

Re:We need Groklaw for the next war, not the last. (1)

Forbman (794277) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353761)

Well, Bill Gate's dad was a lawyer, after all...

Re:We need Groklaw for the next war, not the last. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26353965)

Actually, society (well, the US) is running Open Source software.

It's just that instead of letting talented programmers contribute, we choose random dudes from the crowd to authorize patches. Some of them have coded, many have not. Most haven't read the original specifications document, and some refuse to.

We also randomly cut snippets of code out of the system when a sploit is discovered.

Sometimes we invite the black hats to approve code, and sometimes the patch managers are paid by the black hats to install keyloggers at random.

It's just that the kernel is (so far) stable enough that we haven't had a system crash in about 200 years. The financial drivers have created a buffer overflow, leading to a money leak, and it's playing heck with other devices that need DMA (direct money access).

Re:We need Groklaw for the next war, not the last. (2, Interesting)

digitalunity (19107) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353989)

Yeah but the GP wasn't really right. The court systems are only as open as you can afford. There were real costs associated with obtaining the mountains of court transcripts for Groklaw. Much of that cost was borne by a relatively small number of participants who resided near the relevant courthouses.

Without the persistent action of a small number of people and PJ's tenacity, Groklaw wouldn't have ever gotten off the ground.

In this day and age, it's a travesty court transcripts aren't published for free on the internet to be truly accessible to the public.

Groklaw isn't the only resource... (5, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#26349225)

There's groups like the EFF, sites like Chilling Effects, and individual blogs like NYCL's, news aggregators like Slashdot, magazines like Wired, and many others... I can only begin a list of the categories, let alone the sites themselves.

Groklaw has been a rallying point for part of the online civil discourse, but it's not the only one. Perhaps the community that has grown around Groklaw can keep using it as a touchstone, as they shift their own emphasis to other parts of the web, but that doesn't need Pamela's continued engagement and daily involvement, does it?

Re:Groklaw isn't the only resource... (4, Informative)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 5 years ago | (#26349353)

Groklaw is certainly the only thorough one. Many other sites touch on these issues from time to time, but none so frequently and thoroughly as Groklaw. Every single major even in the SCO litigation appears to have been covered, most major documents analyzed and all of the judge's comments and rulings criticized.

Re:Groklaw isn't the only resource... (2, Interesting)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#26349577)

Could be, could be, so perhaps the Groklaw community has an opportunity here, if they can pull together and set up a broader based site that's not focussed on a single lawsuit.

But I've seen and been a part of so many groups like this, though, and I've found that once the original cause is won or lost they rarely hang together.

Drawing a line under the SCO trial and archiving the whole thing will at least retain that focus for a while, and provide a resource for "the next time". The current "net neutrality" debate is awfully familiar to people involved in COSUARD in its day, but where is alt.cosuard now?

Speaking of lawsuits, how would you rate NYCL's coverage of the RIAA's legal campaign by comparison?

Re:Groklaw isn't the only resource... (1)

u38cg (607297) | more than 5 years ago | (#26350671)

alt.cosuard? Gone the same way as the debate over universal postage services, I suppose.

COSUARD and Network Neutrality (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#26350773)

And yet the same companies that were trying to scam hobbyists into paying business rates are trying to scam websites into paying them twice for the same traffic.

Re:We need Groklaw for the next war, not the last. (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 5 years ago | (#26349295)

I would love to see groklaw's present state archived for posterity in a more convenient to browse format for archival purposes (also easier to mirror).

At the same time, I'd love the site to carry on analyzing legal news (PJ and contributors willing) separately.

Anti-SCO shill? (0, Troll)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 5 years ago | (#26349087)

Or now that SCOX is dead, the secret funding behind Groklaw has dried up, leaving them hanging on the vine? /btw, I hate SCOX too, I'm just sayin'

Submit everything to the Library of Congress (3, Interesting)

CdXiminez (807199) | more than 5 years ago | (#26349351)

Submit all of Groklaw's electronic publications to the Library of Congress.
They're a reliable long-term (centuries) repository of publications.

Re:Submit everything to the Library of Congress (2, Interesting)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 5 years ago | (#26349741)

And if possible to similar libraries in other countries as well.

In Britain we have the British Library, the National Libraries of Scotland and Wales, and the University Libraries of Oxford, Cambridge and Dublin. Dublin is not in Britain, but nevertheless it is one of the British copyright libraries.

Re:Submit everything to the Library of Congress (1)

CdXiminez (807199) | more than 5 years ago | (#26350177)

Now that you mention it, I'll go and inform my librarian colleagues at the Netherlands National Library next work day.

Re:Submit everything to the Library of Congress (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 5 years ago | (#26356147)

Submit all of Groklaw's electronic publications to the Library of Congress.

But how much space would they take up?

Forrest Gump . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26349475)

It's like the portion of the movie Forrest Gump where he finally decides to stop running and all the followers are standing around questioning.

"I'm pretty tired... I think I'll go home now." And just like that, my running days were over.

Groklaw and PJ sucks (and not in a good way) (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26349511)

Groklaw sucks, the overwhelming politics and dirty crap pulled by PJ is unconscionable, unethical and immoral.

Delete posts because users disagree with you? for shame!

or even completely delete users and BAN them just because we pointed out you made a mistake, that's totally scummy!

Groklaw was good "back in the day", it's been totally meaningless and useless for a long time now.

Oh sure, a few bits here and there. but not really. Now we have no reason to read it any more.

Come on, deleting a post for pointing out your mistakes or disagreeing with you is totally unprofessional and unethical

I will NOT miss groklaw.

The U.S. Copyright is total crap! (1)

Copywrite (1446445) | more than 5 years ago | (#26349583)

To: The U.S. Supreme Court Justices [petitiononline.com]

Dear Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Justice John Paul Stevens, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Justice David H. Souter, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, Justice Samuel A. Alito:

We are writing to you regarding the case of Dr. Dongxiao Yue v. Sun Microsystems, et al., which is set for conference in January 2009 (Information of the case can be found at www.American-Justice.org and YouTube).

In November 2007, Dr. Yue sued defendants for pirating his PowerRPC software [petitiononline.com] . Evidence included defendants' internal documents showing Sun knowingly sold unauthorized and unlimited copies of PowerRPC to others. However, in March 2008, former U.S. District Judge Martin J. Jenkins dismissed Dr. Yue's lawsuit without ruling on any of the copyright claims.

The District Court then awarded defendants $219,949.90 of attorneys' fees and costs under Section 505 of the U.S. Copyright Act.

While Dr. Yue's appeal is ongoing, on December 15, 2008, the District Court issued a Writ of Execution directing county sheriff to take possession of Dr. Yue's assets (primarily his copyrights and his family home where his two young children live), despite Dr. Yue's request for humanitarian consideration. Dr. Yue's application for stay at the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal was summarily denied without any explanation.

Awarding software pirates under U.S. Copyright Act would encourage infringement of intellectual property and would be detrimental to U.S. economy. The lower courts should have provided Dr. Yue equal protection as other American copyright owners.

We respectfully request that your Honor carefully consider Dr. Yue's arguments before the Supreme Court and make an equitable decision.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned (Click to View Sigantures) [petitiononline.com]

Formal recognition of PJ's contribution to law (4, Insightful)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 5 years ago | (#26349763)

I think this would be a good time to seek some formal honours for PJ. Granted she has all the respect she has earned from the community over the course of the SCO epic, but it would be nice to find some appropriate gesture to show her in some tangible way just how valuable we believe she is as a person.

I don't know what she includes in her formal qualifications, but an honourary doctorate from some high profile law school (whether she has an LLD already or whatnot) would probably not go astray. For that matter, I wouldn't think a Presidential Medal of Freedom would be inappropriate either, but that's just me. PJ has not been just a breath of fresh air, she's been the only air we had. To honour her appropriately for that accomplishment would also be to honour an example of where people exercised their democratic right to resist bullying by people who see the courts as just another business tool.

Re:Formal recognition of PJ's contribution to law (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26351493)

I'll donkey punch her. But she'll have to lose 50 pounds and wear a bag over her head.

Re:Formal recognition of PJ's contribution to law (1)

softcoder (252233) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353933)

Second the motion!
It is true that PJ's original intent was to document the SCO case for posterity. Initially she did not have a real opinion about SCO. She was looking forward to the trial and observing the tactics of two sets of high profile lawyers. That changed pretty quick of course once SCO and their lawyers showed their true colors.
But still the original mission of Groklaw - to document in depth the SCO trial - is accomplished.
In the process she has also shown the power of harnessing the FOSS methodology to other fields.
There is nothing stopping the ACLU, or the EFF, or anyone else from doing the same about issues that matter to them, but we cant really expect PJ to be the one to do it.
An honorary doctorate in LAW for PJ sounds like an excellent idea. Maybe at the next OSCON? Tell Tim O'Reilly to start promoting it!

IMO: somebody should take over groklaw (2, Interesting)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 5 years ago | (#26351733)

Groklaw is something like an established brand name. Groklaw has been quoted - or mentioned - in many major publications, groklaw has has won many awards, and has an established reader base.

Groklaw is not just about the scox case. Groklaw has covered, in considerable depth, many legal issues relating to IT. For example the OOXML scam.

Although I would welcome PJ to write more articles, I don't think groklaw really needs PJ anymore.

I think PJ is being very disingenuous (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26352403)

As a supporter and advocate of open source software, and more importantly, the principle of openness, I don't understand how PJ can come now to the open source community in general, and veteran groklaw readers in particular, with a straight face, and claim that she is suddenly interested in preserving the so-called 'complete' record of groklaw.

This, after she has spent the last five years systematically avoiding transparency in groklaw's operations, and maintaining an iron grip on its contents by blocking access to user's comments from archive.org, and the major search engines such as google, msn, and yahoo via robots.txt. And not only has she blocked outside search engines, but she has also deliberately disabled the ability within groklaw to search for comments by author, thus making it much more difficult to see how her own comments have changed over time, and have sometimes even contradicted themselves.

I think that PJ has, through her own behavior, irreparibly harmed, if not totally destroyed, the value of groklaw as a historical reference, by her relentless exertion of absolute control over every comment posted, quickly deleting all posts that do not sufficiently toe the party line, and literally "disappearing" the accounts of some of groklaw's most valuable contributors when they dared to disagree with her even slightly. As a result, groklaw has become little more than a strident speaker on a soapbox, in the center of a large echo chamber, resounding to the shouts of "Amen!" by the true believers.

Those of you who have followed groklaw from its earliest days will remember one frequent contributor by the handle of "AllParadox", who learned firsthand how groklaw really operates. A retired attorney by his own account, his insightful posts were the product of years of legal experience, both in and out of the courtroom. In the beginning, he was one of PJ's staunchest defenders and advocates, vociferously rebuking any and all criticism of her. Then, something happened, and his posts disappeared. In an instant, he became an un-person, and all who asked about him or mentioned him also ran the risk of being made un-persons by PJ. His own comments about what happened to him on groklaw can be found here: http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_S/threadview?m=tm&bn=2942&tid=383807&mid=383807&tof=10&so=E&rt=2&frt=2&off=1&p=mq611k_AWrbLlqArvKx.K_r6c55v2m5DOHmUgyxq6.J5PYFCet.LUhM- [yahoo.com]

What is perhaps even more troubling than the heavy-handed censorship of different voices on groklaw, is that PJ reportedly uses a very deceptive practice, sometimes called shadow-banning or shadow-deletion. The way that it reportedly works is to make the posts of a shadow-banned member invisible to everyone except PJ and the banned poster. Because of this, nobody except PJ can see, or know, what exactly is on any given page of the site. The version of groklaw that one ordinary user, "Alice", sees may be very different from the version that another user, "Bob", sees. This alone means that groklaw can never be taken seriously as an historical archive. An archive must have a fixed and immutable content; it cannot change itself depending on who is accessing it.

Moreover, one of the most important aspects of an archive is that it provides us with an accurate record of the nature of the *debate* about controversial issues in the past, and to show how one side won the *argument* with reasons, and persuasion. Seeing how arguments were won and lost can be very informative, and helpful to us as we face new challenges. An archive would be virtually useless if it systematically expunged one side of every argument. Indeed, it would be very Orwellian.

Over the years, when she has been questioned about her management of groklaw, PJ and her defenders have forcefully asserted that groklaw is PJ's personal blog - nothing more and nothing less, and that she has every right to do with it whatever she so pleases, despite the fact that groklaw is hosted by 'ibiblio', which is part of a public university whose mission is to preserve culturally relevant collections of digital content, not provide free hosting for personal blogs.

I don't think that PJ can have it both ways. After years of running groklaw as her own personal fiefdom accountable to no one, she cannot now expect people to act as though it were suddenly a sacrosanct repository of objective historical relevance, and donate money to her as she is now asking, and volunteer their time to pore over and catalog all the old posts.

To me, her current requests and comments appear to be overflowing with both hypocrisy and audacity, and it dissapoints me greatly, because in my view, her childish conduct has tarnished and diminished the great work of groklaw's many earnest and hardworking contributors, and set back the cause of open source software, by making us seem like fanatical zealots in the eyes of many neutral observers in the legal and technical arenas.

Re:I think PJ is being very disingenuous (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26355639)

It is not only her own site she wants to sanitize.
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20071121231905127&title=Could%20someone%20please%20fix%20this%3F&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=648388#c648423

Re:I think PJ is being very disingenuous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26357263)

Having followed Goklaw daily for the past three years, and once having been subjected to PJ's wrath and censorship when I once ventured a contrary opinion, I can testify to the accuracy of your complaint. What you just said needed to be said, and was extremely well articulated. Congratulations.

So... (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#26353245)

So write it to a DVD and get back online. How long can that take?

And check your robots.txt file to ensure that the Internet Archive keeps a backup copy as well.

And if you're extremely paranoid (given that other blogger site that just went tits-up), put a zipped searchable archive file on your site that anyone else can d/l and back up as well.

It doesn't have to be rocket science.

And print it all in a book which Google will scan and put in their digital library...

What about progress? (1)

MarkoNo5 (139955) | more than 5 years ago | (#26355849)

As all type system people know, preservation means nothing without progress ;-)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...