Beta
×

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!

Linus to SCO: 'Please Grow Up'

michael posted about 11 years ago | from the no-you-can't-have-any-pudding dept.

Caldera 1163

brakk writes "From this article at Infoworld, Linus responds to SCO's open letter in a manner reminiscent of patting a child on the head." chrisd notes that his company is making SCO employees unhireable.

cancel ×

1163 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Linus owns (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6930736)

Linus > SCO
adi > Linus
fp > adi
dan fped
DAN OWNS

Childish screening procedures. (5, Insightful)

grub (11606) | about 11 years ago | (#6930742)


Another relatively uninteresting open letter, however this part of the submission caught my eye:

chrisd notes that his company is making SCO employees unhireable.
[from that link]:
Any resumes which include the Santa Cruz Operation after May of 2003 will be immediately deleted as well.

That is truly childish. The real assholes at SCO are the suits and money-grubbing lawyers responsible for this charade. A code monkey in the trenches who needs a job to pay the bills isn't necessarily an enemy of open source.

Guilt by association is a slippery slope, remember Joe McCarthy?

Re:Childish screening procedures. (-1, Interesting)

pheared (446683) | about 11 years ago | (#6930779)

Why didn't Mr./Ms. codemonkey leave SCO around that time? They should be able to point to that if they are in fact someone who is sympathetic to the attack on Linux.

Re:Childish screening procedures. (5, Insightful)

MojoMonkey (444942) | about 11 years ago | (#6930812)

Hard to say, just remember that it's a tough economy right now, and getting a paycheck twice a month is hard to turn away from. Sometime getting food in your kids mouth takes priority over making a statement. They should not be punished for this.

Re:Childish screening procedures. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6930915)

"I was just following orders, err, trying to feed my kids!"

Actually, I agree, hire the codemonkeys away from them, just make sure they haven't been tainted by American lawyer-think!

Re:Childish screening procedures. (1)

The_Unforgiven (521294) | about 11 years ago | (#6930815)

Yeah, new jobs just throw themselves at them all the time, I bet. /me checks the unemployment rate again...

Re:Childish screening procedures. (3, Insightful)

grub (11606) | about 11 years ago | (#6930832)


Anytime an employer does something one finds disturbing, that person should just change employers? That would eventually leave him/her unemployed. Too many jobs in too short a period on a resume is a red-flag.

Remember that your employer does not speak for you.

Re:Childish screening procedures. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6930839)

Stay: Have a reliable (for now anyway) paycheck.
Leave: No paycheck. No sure new job. And since not fired, no unemployment benefits to speak of.

Now, if a person had a job to change to, then it'd be different. Blocking that door doesn't help the codemonky, it helps SCO.

Re:Childish screening procedures. (1)

drakaan (688386) | about 11 years ago | (#6930870)

Unless, maybe, they just needed to feed themselves and their family. I'd imagine that *now* there may be a lot of SCO coders thinking that they're really going to need new employment soon.

Re:Childish screening procedures. (3, Interesting)

MoonFog (586818) | about 11 years ago | (#6930878)

How about Mr/Ms codemonkey couldn't afford being unemployed ?
It hasn't been easy getting new jobs over the past few months, so I understand people holding on to whatever jobs they've got.
Now with the economy on it's rise it might be a different story.
I find it wrong to judge people in this manner, the actual coders at SCO probably have NOTHING to do with the "crusade" against Linux.

Re:Childish screening procedures. (1)

VorpalHamster (685888) | about 11 years ago | (#6930990)

The U.S. economy is on the rise? That's news to me.

re: childish screening procedures (1)

ed.han (444783) | about 11 years ago | (#6930891)

sometimes you gotta hold your nose and keep working. codemonkeys are hard at work over in redmond, too, after all. if you're a developer in this market, are you sure you wanna leave a paying gig on somebody else's timetable rather than your own? i'm not a developer, but i certainly wouldn't.

i agree that this is probably not the wisest HR policy, but it's their company.

ed

Re:Childish screening procedures. (5, Insightful)

swb (14022) | about 11 years ago | (#6930892)

I don't know about you, but quitting your job in a bad overall economy and a truly horseshit IT economy can seriously endanger the well-being and stability of one's home and family.

As much as I think SCO is a bad company and what they're doing is reprehensible, do you really think that someone should risk their home and family over it?

I might be inclined to do it if I was literally fighting for my community against some real threat (ie, armed invasion or military coup d'etat), but over the SCO/Linux debacle?

I think you have to have a serious lack of perspective if you think that committing economic suicide over SCO is the right thing to do.

Re:Childish screening procedures. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6930893)


Why didn't Mr./Ms. codemonkey leave SCO around that time?


Mortage?
Children?
Braces?
Car Payments?

Re:Childish screening procedures. (3, Insightful)

soulsteal (104635) | about 11 years ago | (#6930897)

Ideals and sympathy don't feed children or pay bills.

Maybe (5, Insightful)

Andy Dodd (701) | about 11 years ago | (#6930922)

Mr. Codemonkey has been submitting resumes without success?

If they're applying for a job at a Linux company, shouldn't it be painfully fucking obvious that they're TRYING TO JUMP SHIP?

Why benefit SCO by making it *HARDER* for their employees to jump ship?

Re:Childish screening procedures. (1)

Da_Big_G (3880) | about 11 years ago | (#6930947)

Be realistic... there probably aren't many (if ANY) coders (or anyone else low on the totempole) left at SCO... it's a litigous shell. And those who are left probably own enough stock that due to the recent runups they don't care whether or not some companies won't hire them.

Re:Childish screening procedures. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6930948)

Why is being sympathetic to Linux relevant to getting a job at a no-name games company?

Re:Childish screening procedures. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6930993)

A question... Since when do OSS values take precedence over having a job? It's hard enough today to find a job; to quit one because they are attacking companies and OSS is just plain stupid. Save the moral outrage for something that will truly affect your life. And if a company is saying that they will not hire people because they worked for SCO as code monkeys, that truly is childish. People want to be part of something bigger than themselves. When they get the chance to do so, they go overboard in trying to jump on the bandwagon, in this case, the moral outrage against SCO.

Even more childish poster..... (1)

big-giant-head (148077) | about 11 years ago | (#6930996)

If we were in the height of the dotcom bubble sure. You could put out a resume on monday and have a new job by wednesday. Thats not the case now. ALOT of techical folks out there have been out of work for months or even years (1+ to 2+). If you have a family to support you can't just quit because your company does something you don't like. Now if they are doing something illegal, just up and quitting might be an option.

Not hiring some programmer because they work at SCO is plain stupid. To be quite honest this guys website sucked and working for his company probably sucks too if they have this mentality.

Certainly I could see not hiring someone like a Darl McBride from SCO, but dumping on some poor C++ programmer trying to make a living. Give me a physcial break.

Re:Childish screening procedures. (3, Insightful)

theNote (319197) | about 11 years ago | (#6930811)

I believe this practice may be illegal.

Any EOE experts to give some clarification?

I believe this could be considered discrimination, and companies are required to keep all resumes they receive on file.

Re:Childish screening procedures. (4, Interesting)

Xerithane (13482) | about 11 years ago | (#6930956)

I believe this could be considered discrimination, and companies are required to keep all resumes they receive on file.

Companies are only required to keep resumes on file that meet their submission guidelines. If you clearly state, "This is the only way you can send a resume" than you only need to store those that come in that way.

Any EOE experts to give some clarification?

I'm not an expert, but I pretend on Slashdot. This is just speculation, so treat it as such.

From Damage Studio's Point of View they are filtering their applicants based upon previous documented work ethics. You can filter applicants based on past history, without it being discrimination. For example, would the SEC hire someone from the financial department at Enron? Probably not, as they have a history of supporting false claims.

Same thing. SCO employees are supporting false claims, as well as bogus lawsuits. This is something Damage doesn't want to get involved with, so they are opting to not hire people who have worked for a company who is very well known for doing that.

Discrimination usually means things you can't help, too. Nobody is forcing anybody to work at SCO.

Re:Childish screening procedures. (5, Interesting)

FileNotFound (85933) | about 11 years ago | (#6930962)

I am fairly sure that this is legal. Past employment record is something that "shows your ability to perform the job".
If you were an employee of a company that had conflicting values then it's reasonable to reject you based on that fact. It is already common for companies to not hire employees from their competitors fearling IP leaks and the lawsuits that follow.
Under that logic it is a perfectly valid concern that a SCO employee might "inevitably" bring some SCO IP into the company and result in SCO filing a lawsuit.

Does that make it ok to not hire someone just because they worked for SCO? I think it's moraly wrong, baseless and absolutley retarded. But I doubt that it's illegal. But of course IMNAL...

How so? (1)

Pac (9516) | about 11 years ago | (#6930965)

If I am hiring someone I may well include in my hiring criteria that having worked for SCO (or Microsoft or Starbuck or the US Government or Pizza Hut) is a liability. And I think I may even consider that anyone who has worked for those companies are unfit to work in my company. How can this be illegal?

Re:Childish screening procedures. (4, Funny)

whee (36911) | about 11 years ago | (#6930826)

Damage Studios is a San Francisco based Equal Opportunity Employer.
Doesn't sound that equal to me. I don't know if I'd want to work for a company (Damage Studios) that acted in this manner, anyway.

Re:Childish screening procedures. (2, Insightful)

moz13 (673277) | about 11 years ago | (#6930866)

They have a right to hire those with values that sit best with their company. If they percieve someone who remains with SCO after their actions as not having the values they seek, they have every right to deny application.

Re:Childish screening procedures. (1)

valkraider (611225) | about 11 years ago | (#6930937)

And we have every right to not buy their products/services and to advise others to do the same. If they are *serious* about this, and not just being silly - then they are behaving no better than SCO.

Re:Childish screening procedures. (1)

KilljoyAZ (412438) | about 11 years ago | (#6930968)

They still need to keep all resumes on file (i.e., not deleting them upon receipt) for at least two years [fairmeasures.com] , according to California law.

Re:Childish screening procedures. (1)

ek169 (58368) | about 11 years ago | (#6930992)

I do not believe there is any of measuring the equality of the screening process, ignoring those resumes is part of the screening process. Another thing it might be a completely defensible position on behave of the company. For example, I am a restaurant owner, and have had a bad service experience in another establishment, I probably would not hire anybody from that place. I realize that it is not the same as screening based on political issues, but you also have to remember that SCO's products suck.

Re:Childish screening procedures. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6930852)

Childish and irrelevant. Who gives a toss about "Damage Studios", whoever the fuck they are?

Not fair to SCO (1)

teidou (651247) | about 11 years ago | (#6930865)

Can they really be an "Equal Opportunity Employer" if they won't hire recent SCO employees?

Oh, I get it, SCO employee's opportunity to get hired there is equal to their opportunity to get hired elsewhere... poor schmucks.

I actually do feel sorry for them. I'm sure it's the executives making the decisions.

Re:Childish screening procedures. (5, Insightful)

cindik (650476) | about 11 years ago | (#6930869)

Indeed. Sarah works at SCO. Recent moves spur her to seek other employment. She's unhireable. Why? Because she didn't immeditately quit and beg for quarters on the street until she got a new job? What an insane overreaction.

Re:Childish screening procedures. (2, Insightful)

valkraider (611225) | about 11 years ago | (#6930872)

I 100% agree. It is sad that people will base opinions of regular honda accord driving normal employees on the actions of yacht owning mansion dwelling executives.

Happens all the time. People gotta eat... Lets be more reasonable here, and remember who we all are...

Not that I expect anything to change because *I* asked...

Re:Childish screening procedures. (1)

ichimunki (194887) | about 11 years ago | (#6930877)

From the Damage Studios page: (C) Copyright 2002-2403 Damage Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.

I mean, I don't know what's the worse "intellectual property" faux pas, SCO claiming they own every type of Unix ever imagined or Damage assuming that their copyright will be valid for another 400 years. :)

Re:Childish screening procedures. (4, Insightful)

mocm (141920) | about 11 years ago | (#6930901)

Maybe the reason for not hiring former SCO people is the fear of being sued by SCO, when those people contribute to your own software, since SCO seems to have a very wide definition of "derivative work".

On the other hand, if their motives are to take revenge on SCO, why not automatically hire any programmer (not executive) that will leave SCO immediately.

Re:Childish screening procedures. (3, Insightful)

BFKrew (650321) | about 11 years ago | (#6930903)

I have to agree here.

What chance does the average coder who works to feed his family and keep a roof over his head have of influencing company executives (who can sakc him) who smell a big pay packet? Get real. Absolutely none at all. Sure, he can leave but if everyone who worked at companies who have undesirable motives, or were pursuing easy money then there'd be no one working!

chrisd if I were you, I'd get this taken off because you're company just looks petty and rather spiteful. Who would WANT to work for a company where the person who is interviewing you is mainly concerned with nothing to do with your job? You don't do yourself, or your company any favours whatsoever. What's next - judge someone on where they worked 5 years ago? God help your current employees with MS experience or if Red Hat etc ever do anything amiss!

You will get the applicants you deserve.

Re:Childish screening procedures. (1)

wolf- (54587) | about 11 years ago | (#6930908)

Actually, is this even legal?
Our understanding is that all resumes submitted must be not only accepted, but stored for a certain period of time.

Mod parent up (n/t) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6930931)

This blather added to get past the lameness filter.

Re:Childish screening procedures. (1)

stratjakt (596332) | about 11 years ago | (#6930986)

If you're company has less than whatever the threshhold number of employees is, you don't have to follow EOE guidelines.

Like little family-run restaurants don't have to fire their son and hire a black guy just to meet a quota.

This is just immature and stupid, though. Whatever this company sells, I won't buy it.

Re:Childish screening procedures. (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 11 years ago | (#6930912)

well.. they should have bailed out then(of course, making up very valid excuses is totally easy, but so is it always, be it a soldier or a mafia henchmen, or sco worker, it's not like they've had a healthy lineup in that section for a while anyways, apologies if there actually is somebody working there with a clue, though, if he has a clue he would bail out and report the company to officials as doing fraud).

anyways.. the whole thing is not much more than a publicity stunt anyways, how probable is it that somebody from sco would join their project of making a 'million player online game' vs slashdot/other_geek_press_possible_customers publicity?

Re:Childish screening procedures. (5, Interesting)

MuParadigm (687680) | about 11 years ago | (#6930936)


Well, now that there's a new item for Open Letters, here's the extensively revised version of the one I posted a couple days ago. You can also see it on my journal page [slashdot.org] .

A Linux User's Open Response to Darl McBride's Open Letter to the Open Source Community
By John Gabriel, NYC, 9/11/03

"What comes of litigation? Poverty and degradation to any community that will encourage it. Will it build cities, open farms, build railroads, erect telegraph lines and improve a country? It will not; but it will bring any community to ruin." -- Brigham Young, JD 11:259.

"Contracts are what you use against those with whom you have relationships." -- Darl McBride

Dear Mr. McBride,

First, let me introduce myself. My name is John Gabriel. I have been working in the technical field for 15 years, as a Network Administrator, Applications Manager, Network Manager, Sr. Networking Engineer, and now, Freelance Consultant. And, yes, I'm an MCSE.

My first experiences with Unix occurred in the late 1970's, during school field trips to local colleges. I also did Unix technical support for students while taking a class in Pascal in the late 1980's. My first experience with Linux dates to 1994, when I downloaded whatever Linux kernel was available at that time.

While I did install it successfully, on a Compaq Deskpro 386/25, I quickly abandoned it as the Deskpro didn't have enough memory to support the X Windows System. Several years later, in 1998, I became a Caldera customer, with a purchase of Caldera OpenLinux Base ver. 1.22, with Linux kernel 2.0.33. I ran into similar problems once more.

About a year ago, I again became interested in Linux, and now run Linux on my home workstation in a dual-boot configuration with Windows XP.

About 4-5 months ago, I began following the SCO v. IBM story. I was at first inclined to be open-minded towards SCO's claims. It wouldn't be the first time a small company has had its copyrights violated by a larger vendor, though the violator is usually, in my experience, Microsoft, as exemplified by Caldera's history with DR-DOS.

However, the more I researched the story and SCO's claims, the more convinced I became that SCO's claims were, well, baseless. Being the type that usually likes to "root for the underdog", I was surprised by my conclusions.

Anyway, that's enough introduction. What follows is an Open Response to your Open Letter to the Open Source Community. I grant everyone, including you, permission to re-publish it, or quote from it, without restriction, except that my comments be properly attributed to myself. Consider it under a "BSD-style" license if you like.


Open Letter to the Open Source Community [sco.com]
By Darl McBride, CEO, The SCO Group [sco.com]

1) The most controversial issue in the information technology industry today is the ongoing battle over software copyrights and intellectual property. This battle is being fought largely between vendors who create and sell proprietary software, and the Open Source community. My company, the SCO Group, became a focus of this controversy when we filed a lawsuit against IBM alleging that SCO's proprietary Unix code has been illegally copied into the free Linux operating system. In doing this we angered some in the Open Source community by pointing out obvious intellectual property problems that exist in the current Linux software development model.

Response to Paragraph 1 of your "Open Letter":

This is very difficult to respond to, because your analysis of the issues and of the reasons for the Open Source community's anger is, in the words of the great physicist Wolfgang Pauli, "so bad it's not even wrong."

For instance, your own lawsuit against IBM does not allege that "SCO's proprietary Unix code has been illegally copied into Linux" -- it alleges that code *owned* by IBM but under contractual "control" rights to SCO has been copied into Linux. Surely, you don't dispute that IBM owns the relevant copyrights and patents to NUMA, JFS, and RCU?

Or do you dispute Section 2 of Exhibit C on your web site, the ATT-IBM sideletter agreement, which states in part, "we (ATT) agree that modifications and derivative works prepared by or for you (IBM) are owned by you"?

The truth is there are many reasons the open source community is angered with you and the actions of The SCO Group and The Canopy Group, none of which have to do with "intellectual property problems that exist in the current Linux software development model." We don't believe such problems exist. We do believe that The SCO Groups legal theories of what constitutes "derivative works" have no basis in copyright, patent, or trademark law, have no basis in SCO's contracts with various licensees, and are frivolous in the legal sense.

We are further angered by your statements in the press comparing us to communists, thieves, and terrorists, and implying that we knowingly aid terrorists. We also object to statements that we do not care about intellectual property. As I think you will discover, if you read this response all the way through, we not only care about it very deeply, but are quite knowledgeable on the subject.

Finally, we are angry because of statements such as those contained in your opening paragraph, throughout the rest of the Open Letter, and elsewhere, that can at best be construed as ignorant of the underlying issues and documents, somewhat less charitably as technological, managerial, and communicative incompetence, or, at worst, willful and deceitful misstatement and manipulation of the known facts.


2) This debate about Open Source software is healthy and beneficial. It offers long-term benefits to the industry by addressing a new business model in advance of wide-scale adoption by customers. But in the last week of August two developments occurred that adversely affect the long-term credibility of the Open Source community, with the general public and with customers.

Response to Paragraph 2:

There is nothing "new" about the Open Source business model. The Open Source business model is much older than the proprietary software business model. The Free Software Foundation was first founded in 1985. Before that, at the dawn of the electronic computer era in the 1930's and 40's, research, ideas, and source code was shared freely in order to propel the advancement of computer architectures. This continued well into the present, and other projects that would be considered "Open Source" now, though the term was not widespread at the time, would include the Apple I, and the Altair -- the first inexpensive and programmable electronic computers for consumers.


3) The first development followed another series of Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks on SCO, which took place two weeks ago. These were the second and third such attacks in four months and have prevented Web users from accessing our web site and doing business with SCO. There is no question about the affiliation of the attacker - Open Source leader Eric Raymond was quoted as saying that he was contacted by the perpetrator and that "he's one of us." To Mr Raymond's partial credit, he asked the attacker to stop. However, he has yet to disclose the identity of the perpetrator so that justice can be done.

Response to Paragraph 3:

Eric Raymond's attribution of the recent SCO downtime to a DDoS attack by a senior networking engineer is regarded by many in the community as unreliable. I, myself, ran some traceroutes while SCO's website was down, reported them at Groklaw and Slashdot, and determined that if there was a DoS attack in progress, it was like none ever seen before: despite the traffic that would be necessary to shut down SCO's web site, no other close sites on the Center 7 network appeared to be affected. Furthermore, repeated calls to SCO confirmed that the site was down for maintenance. Until SCO provides logs to prove it was under a DoS attack, I'm afraid many in the community will regard SCO's accusations as spurious. So, you see, there are questions as to the reasons for, and provenance of, SCO's downtime in late August and early September.


4) No one can tolerate DDoS attacks and other kinds of attacks in this Information Age economy that relies so heavily on the Internet. Mr Raymond and the entire Open Source community need to aggressively help the industry police these types of crimes. If they fail to do so it casts a shadow over the entire Open Source movement and raises questions about whether Open Source is ready to take a central role in business computing. We cannot have a situation in which companies fear they may be next to suffer computer attacks if they take a business or legal position that angers the Open Source community. Until these illegal attacks are brought under control, enterprise customers and mainstream society will become increasingly alienated from anyone associated with this type of behavior.

Response to Paragraph 4:

Anyone would agree with the general tenor of your statements, Mr. McBride. However, it looks like misdirection to many of us, since the provenance of SCO's downtime remains in doubt, since your statements do not address the issues of SCO's case against IBM nor SCO's accusations about misappropriation of intellectual property rights in general, and since such attacks are frowned upon and abhorred by the large majority of the open source community.


5) The second development was an admission by Open Source leader Bruce Perens that UNIX System V code (owned by SCO) is, in fact, in Linux, and it shouldn't be there. Mr Perens stated that there is "an error in the Linux developer's process" which allowed Unix System V code that "didn't belong in Linux" to end up in the Linux kernel (source: ComputerWire, August 25, 2003). Mr Perens continued with a string of arguments to justify the "error in the Linux developer's process." However, nothing can change the fact that a Linux developer on the payroll of Silicon Graphics (SGI) stripped copyright attributions from copyrighted System V code that was licensed to Silicon Graphics under strict conditions of use, and then contributed that source code to Linux as though it was clean code owned and controlled by SGI. This is a clear violation of SGI's contract and copyright obligations to SCO. We are currently working to try and resolve these issues with SGI.

Response to Paragraph 5:

The code you refer to was traced back to Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, who created Unix for Bell Labs in 1969. It far precedes the development of System V, the *only* Unix to which SCO can conceivably claim any rights. This also illustrates a major problem with SCO's claims to "ownership" of Unix. The Unix System V source code is itself derivative of previous Unixes. Whether or not SCO's system for identifying similar and "obfuscated" code in Linux is reliable, and there are very strong doubts in the community about that as well, the system you are using makes no attempt to verify the provenance of the code. So far, SCO has yet to publicly identify a single snippet of code that has been both copied into Linux, and verified to have originated in System V.

You have also taken Mr. Peren's statements completely and egregiously out of context. For the record, the quote comes from his analysis of the code snippets presented at SCOForum, and the full quote is: "In this case, there was an error in the Linux developer's process (at SGI), and we lucked out that it wasn't worse. It turns out that we have a legal right to use the code in question, but it doesn't belong in Linux and has been removed."

In other words, the code in question was released, by Caldera among others interestingly enough, for use in open source projects, and does not illegally infringe on SCO's intellectual property. Mr. Perens' statement that it does not belong in Linux is due to there being no necessity to support the hardware platform for which is was written, and that the code itself is "ugly" in the sense of being poorly written by today's standards and not conforming to the usual coding style of Linux.

"Nothing can change the fact that a Linux developer on the payroll of Silicon Graphics stripped copyright attributions from copyrighted System V code..." Nothing, except, inconveniently, that it is not a fact. The fact is that SGI did extensive due diligence before contributing any code to Linux, and the code in question long precedes the development of Unix System V. SGI have themselves publicly disputed your contentions, and seem prepeared to do so in court as well.


6) This improper contribution of Unix code by SGI into Linux is one small example that reveals fundamental structural flaws in the Linux development process. In fact, this issue goes to the very heart of whether Open Source can be trusted as a development model for enterprise computing software. The intellectual property roots of Linux are obviously flawed at a systemic level under the current model. To date, we claim that more than one million lines of Unix System V protected code have been contributed to Linux through this model. The flaws inherent in the Linux process must be openly addressed and fixed.

Response to Paragraph 6:

"This improper contribution of Unix code by SGI into Linux..." As this statement has already been refuted in response to the previous paragraph, no further comment on it is necessary. Your further observations regarding the "structural" and "systemic" "flaws in the Linux development process" relying on this incorrect "fact" are also refuted.

Your claim that over "one million lines of Unix System V protected code have been contributed to Linux" is, as you know, strongly contested by the Linux community in general, and in court by Red Hat and IBM. The SCOForum presentation strongly suggests that this number was determined by simply adding up all the lines of code contributed by System V licensees without regard for the provenance of the code they contributed or the due diligence they practiced before releasing it.


7) At a minimum, IP sources should be checked to assure that copyright contributors have the authority to transfer copyrights in the code contributed to Open Source. This is just basic due diligence that governs every other part of corporate dealings. Rather than defend the "don't ask, don't tell" Linux intellectual property policy that caused the SCO v IBM case, the Open Source community should focus on customers' needs. The Open Source community should assure that Open Source software has a solid intellectual property foundation that can give confidence to end users. I respectfully suggest to Open Source developers that this is a far better use of your collective resources and abilities than to defend and justify flawed intellectual property policies that are out of sync with the needs of enterprise computing customers.

Response to Paragraph 7:

"At a minimum, IP sources should be checked to assure that copyright contributors have the authority to transfer copyrights in the code contributed to Open Source."

They are. The Linux kernel is built and maintained by some of the best and most experienced coders in the world. Code contributions are regularly debated in the Linux Kernel Mailing List (henceforth LKML). If none of the coders object to the insertion of a particular piece of code in the kernel, it is, and can be safely assumed, that the kernel contributors recognize it as either original or legally unencumbered.Furthermore, all contributions to the kernel are required to be accompanied by a hard copy statement that the contributor owns the code and has the rights to contribute it. A good example is the Read, Copy, Update module (RCU) which SCO has consistently claimed violates their IP rights. The insertion of this code into the Linux kernel source base was debated on the LKML and it was not accepted until IBM proved its ownership of the code and delivered a hard copy patent agreement allowing it to be released under the GPL.

There is no "don't ask, don't tell" policy amongst the Linux kernel contributors. The due diligence practiced by them far exceeds the standard level of diligence generally practiced in the industry. The source code is also freely available, allowing anyone to verify whether the code is infringing on their copyrights or patents, which provides a further diligence check on the code. You know this well, for your abuse of this privilege would not otherwise have been possible. And, in the unlikely event that SCO actually does provide evidence that code originating in Unix System V has been copied into Linux, all you will have proved is that the system does indeed work.


8) I believe that the Open Source software model is at a critical stage of development. The Open Source community has its roots in counter-cultural ideals - the notion of "Hackers" against Big Business - but because of recent advances in Linux, the community now has the opportunity to develop software for mainstream American corporations and other global companies. If the Open Source community wants its products to be accepted by enterprise companies, the community itself must follow the rules and procedures that govern mainstream society. This is what global corporations will require. And it is these customers who will determine the ultimate fate of Open Source - not SCO, not IBM, and not Open Source leaders.

Response to Paragraph 8:

"The Open Source community has its roots in counter-cultural ideals..."

As noted above, in response to paragraph 2, the open source community's ideals are rooted in mainstream academic and research practice. While I profess to be socially liberal and fiscally moderate, the open source community's political and social ideals run the gamut from libertarian to anarchist, and conservative to liberal. Many have become part of the open source community because they believe the process advocated within it constitutes the best way to do business within the technical community. There is no doubt within the community that the creation of software is undergoing a commodification process. We believe that the best response is to participate in that process, which enables the quickest advancement of technical excellence.

"If the Open Source community wants its products to be accepted by enterprise companies..."

It is already accepted by enterprise companies. Deal with it. Try to understand it and understand why.

"... the community itself must follow the rules and procedures that govern mainstream society."

See the response to paragraph 7. You are repeating yourself.

"This is what global corporations will require. And it is these customers who will determine the ultimate fate of Open Source..."

A statement that we can both agree on. And the fate being determined for open source appears to be that of rapidly accelerating adoption.


9) Some enterprise customers have accepted Open Source because IBM has put its name behind it. However, IBM and other Linux vendors are reportedly unwilling to provide intellectual property warranties to their customers. This means that Linux end users must take a hard look at the intellectual property underpinnings of Open Source products and at the GPL (GNU General Public License) licensing model itself.

Response to Paragraph 9:

Most enterprise customers have accepted Open Source because of unreasonable proprietary licensing obligations, and because Linux has proven to be more robust than most proprietary Unixes. For instance, Cisco switched to Linux on its internal print servers when, after a blackout, its Linux servers came back up without any administrative interaction; Cisco's Solaris print servers did not.

So you see, enterprise customers did not accept "Open Source because IBM has put its name behind it"; IBM put its name behind Linux because enterprise customers already accepted it. This is known as "meeting customer demand", which is generally considered a good business practice. You may want to consider emulating it.

"...Linux end users must take a hard look at the intellectual property underpinnings of Open Source products and at the GPL (GNU General Public License) licensing model itself."

Yes, let's take a "hard look" at the GPL. The GPL grants end-users the ability to do anything they want with GPL'd code without restriction except distribute it. This means they can modify it, put it on as many machines as they want, hell, they can even copy the code to CD's and throw a big GPL Bonfire Party, local fire codes permitting.

What they can't do is *distribute* it without restriction. This is the case with any copyrighted work. The "price" (speaking metaphorically) is that if original or modified GPL code is distributed, it must be distributed on the same terms under which it was received -- the GPL. Copyrights must be preserved. If you have modified the code, copyright for your modifications must be included. Source code must be available. Any warranty disclaimers must be preserved. A copy of the GPL must be included. The end-user must be granted all the same rights to do whatever they want with the code without restriction, except distribute it. To distribute it, they must do so under the terms of the GPL. Repeat recursively.

Distributing GPL'd code under conditions which do not meet its requirements violates the copyrights of all other contributors to the GPL'd code.

As per Section 4 of the GPL: "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License..."

Section 5 of the GPL further stipulates: "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it."

Your attempts to sublicense SCO's alleged intellectual property in Linux violates section 4 of the GPL. Your continued distribution of the Linux kernel via your ftp site violates the copyright of all other contributors to the kernel.

It seems that a "hard look" at the GPL leaves SCO in violation of copyright and in breach of the GPL's distribution terms.

It also appears that the only reason to object to the GPL is if SCO wishes to distribute GPL'd code without crediting the authors of said code, or to do so without regard for the conditions under which the authors have chosen to license it.


10) If the Open Source community wants to develop products for enterprise corporations, it must respect and follow the rule of law. These rules include contracts, copyrights and other intellectual property laws. For several months SCO has been involved in a contentious legal case that we filed against IBM. What are the underlying intellectual property principles that have put SCO in a strong position in this hotly debated legal case? I'd summarize them in this way:

Response to Paragraph 10:

"If the Open Source community wants to develop products for enterprise corporations, it must respect and follow the rule of law."

They do.

"These rules include contracts,..."

It is unreasonable to hold the open source community liable for violations of contracts to which they are not a party and are not privy. Your assertions to the contrary are legally frivolous.

"copyrights,..."

The Linux, Open Source, and Free Software communities all have a high regard for copyright. Indeed, they must. Their own contributions are not protectable under the GPL unless they copyright their own code. Your continued assertions that they do not respect copyright are unreasonable, frivolous, fly in the face of their own needs to respect copyright, and in this case, are slanderous.

"... and other intellectual property laws."

The other intellectual property laws that would concern us here are trademark and patent.

As far as patent law goes, SCO has made no claims of patent violation in court, for the simple reason that SCO owns no Unix related patents. Therefore, in relation to SCO's claims, patents are a moot issue. SCO's claims in interviews that Linux is violating its patents are libelous, since, again, SCO has no Unix related patents to violate.

The Unix trademark, and the specification under which products can be advertised under the Unix trademark, are both owned by The Open Group. Again, SCO has no claims, and has filed no claims, under trademark law. SCO's repeated public statements that it "owns Unix" or is the "owner of Unix", however, are arguably violations of The Open Group's trademarks, especially since the only part of any Unix SCO can defensibly, and only potentially, lay claim to are original portions of the System V source code, i.e., those portions not derived from previous Unixes available through open source licenses or public domain.

"What are the underlying intellectual property principles that have put SCO in a strong position in this hotly debated legal case?"

SCO is not in a strong position.

A) SCO does not "own" Unix; it merely, and debatably, owns the Unix System V source code and the licensing contracts related to it. In the BSD case, the presiding judge ruled that ATT was unlikely to be able to defend its copyrights. Nothing has occurred in the past 10 years to make those copyrights more defensible and much has occurred to make them even less defensible. Any attempt by SCO to defend such copyright is likely to end with the entirety of Unix System V source code being declared public domain. Perhaps this is why you have not filed for any copyright violations in the IBM or Red Hat suits yet, Mr. McBride?

B) SCO's right to terminate IBM's Unix System V license, and by extension AIX and Dynix, have been contested by IBM and a third party to the controlling contract, Novell.

C) IBM's contract grants it a "perpetual" and "irrevocable" license (Amendment X).

D) SCO has made no attempt to mitigate its alleged damages by identifying the allegedly infringing code portions under reasonable conditions. No, Mr. McBride, the NDA under which SCO allows perusal of the allegedly infringing code is not reasonable. Nor did SCO extend even that offer to IBM before filing suit.

E) SCO's lack of mitigatory action leaves it in violation of its contractual obligation to IBM to exert "mutual good faith best efforts to resolve any alleged breach" (ATT-IBM Sideletter agreement, section 5).

F) SCO must defend itself against patent violations claimed by IBM in its counter-suit.

G) SCO's release of "ancient Unixes", its distribution of Linux under the GPL, and its historical abrogation of due diligence activities that could have identified any allegedly infringing code *years* earlier, leave it with "unclean hands".

H) The code base in question, Unix System V, is itself derived from previous Unixes that have since been made available under open source licenses, leaving very little System V code protectable. Much of the System V codebase was also illegally misappropriated from BSD Unix, as discovered during the BSD case. Unixware's Linux Kernel Personality is widely believed to include uncredited and misappropriated GPL code from Linux, violating the copyrights of the kernel contributors and breaching the GPL.

And so on. Etcetera ad finis.

In short, SCO is not in a strong position.


11) "Fair use" applies to educational, public service and related applications and does not justify commercial misappropriation. Books and Internet sites intended and authorized for the purpose of teaching and other non-commercial use cannot be copied for commercial use. We believe that some of the SCO software code that has ended up in the Linux operating system got there through this route. This violates our intellectual property rights.

Response to Paragraph 11:

The "Fair Use" doctrine applies only in cases of copyright violation. Again, SCO has filed no claims yet of copyright violation. Bringing it up in the context of the IBM case is misleading and manipulative.

Furthermore, your explanation of the "Fair Use" doctrine is completely incorrect. "Fair Use" applies to any quotation and/or use of copyrighted work that does not unduly infringe the copyright holder's rights. It is not restricted to "educational, public service, and related applications".

"Books and Internet sites intended and authorized for the purpose of teaching and other non-commercial use cannot be copied for commercial use."

Code taught in schools is effectively public domain -- students cannot be held liable for infringing "authorization" contracts they know nothing about and are not party to. Any code that ended up in Linux through this route is either public domain, or under an open source license. It cannot violate your intellectual property rights, since you have none under these conditions.


12) Copyright attributions protect ownership and attribution rights -they cannot simply be changed or stripped away. This is how copyright owners maintain control of their legal rights and prevent unauthorized transfer of ownership. Our proprietary software code has been copied into Linux by people who simply stripped off SCO's copyright notice or contributed derivative works in violation of our intellectual property rights. This is improper.

Response to Paragraph 12:

Again, you have not filed for any copyright violations in court. Perhaps you are preparing the ground for adding such charges to the responses due 9/25 in the Red Hat and IBM cases? Or perhaps you never will file any copyright charges, knowing that ATT already found out the hard way that if they tried to defend their copyrights in court, they would come under considerable risk of having those copyrights placed under public domain?

In any case, your accusations that ATT, SCO, or Caldera code has been stripped of copyrights and inserted into Linux is slanderous and libelous until you file for copyright violations in court and successfully defend those copyrights.


Furthermore, no one is claiming that SCO transferred ownership of its copyrights. What is being claimed is the unarguable fact that SCO itself distributed Linux under the GPL, and that SCO cannot retroactively "unlicense" it.

13) In copyright law, ownership cannot be transferred without express, written authority of a copyright holder. Some have claimed that, because SCO software code was present in software distributed under the GPL, SCO has forfeited its rights to this code. Not so - SCO never gave permission, or granted rights, for this to happen.

Response to Paragraph 13:

You are still being misleading about the status of your copyright claims, since you have not filed for any copyright violations anywhere. Nor has anyone claimed that SCO transferred its copyrights to anyone else, but that SCO itself licensed its code under the GPL. Furthermore, any claim that SCO didn't realize for 3 years that it was releasing it's own code under the GPL is likely to be laughed out of court. You had the code, you could compare the System V and Linux code bases, SCO had previously featured in its public statements its intent to combine the Unix and Linux code bases, and now you claim you didn't know?

Mr. McBride, the only way to defend this in court is to tell the judge that you are a complete idiot, and that all previous mangement was equally incompetent. Even if a court and jury buys that explanation, I hardly think they'll reward SCO's utter stupidity to the tune of 3 billion dollars. It's far more likely they will require SCO to pay IBM's court costs instead.


14) Transfer of copyright ownership without express written authority of all proper parties is null and void.

Response to Paragraph 14:

And distributing your own product under an open source license, then claiming that you didn't know it was your own product, that you thought it was someone else's, makes you look like a jackass. I suspect it will provide evidence for a class action suit on the part of your shareholders.

I mean, Mr. McBride, do you really have no idea how clueless these arguments make you look?


15) Use of derivative rights in copyrighted material is defined by the scope of a license grant. An authorized derivative work may not be used beyond the scope of a license grant. License grants regarding derivative works vary from license to license - some are broad and some are narrow. In other words, the license itself defines the scope of permissive use, and licensees agree to be bound by that definition. One reason SCO sued IBM is due to our assertions that IBM has violated the terms of the specific IBM/SCO license agreement through its handling of derivative works. We believe our evidence is compelling on this issue.

Response to Paragraph 15:

"Use of derivative rights in copyrighted material is defined by the scope of a license grant."

Such as SCO's distribution of the Linux kernel under the GNU General Public License, again in the unlikely event that any origianl System V source code is ever found within Linux.

"An authorized derivative work may not be used beyond the scope of a license grant. License grants regarding derivative works vary from license to license - some are broad and some are narrow. In other words, the license itself defines the scope of permissive use, and licensees agree to be bound by that definition."

Unless otherwise defined within the contract, derivative works are understood in case law to be works that include code from the derived work. Just because a program or portion of code provides functionality within a work does not mean it is a "derived" work. There is no definition of derived works in the contracts made publicly available at SCO's web site, and also by the US Federal Court System through PACER, on which to base such claims. Thus, your evidence so far is not compelling.

Furthermore, contracts cannot typically override copyright law, nor can the terms defined within them typically override precedent.

"One reason SCO sued IBM is due to our assertions that IBM has violated the terms of the specific IBM/SCO license agreement through its handling of derivative works."

In fact, the evidence you have made publicly available includes the ATT-IBM sideletter agreement, in Section 2 of which ATT grants IBM "ownership" of all works derived by or for IBM. In other words, rather than being compelling, your own evidentiary exhibits contradict your claim.


16) The copyright rules that underlie SCO's case are not disputable. They provide a solid foundation for any software development model, including Open Source. Rather than ignore or challenge copyright laws, Open Source developers will advance their cause by respecting the rules of law that built our society into what it is today. This is the primary path towards giving enterprise companies the assurance they need to accept Open Source products at the core of their business infrastructure. Customers need to know that Open Source is legal and stable.

Response to Paragraph 16:

"The copyright rules that underlie SCO's case are not disputable."

So far, SCO's case has been based on contract law, with nary a copyright claim in sight. Therefore, there are no "copyright rules" underlying SCO's case at all, much less any to dispute.

The copyright claims SCO has made in press release, public announcements, interviews, and, now, open letter, are based on rules, such as SCO's definition of "derivative work" that are clearly disputable, since they make assertions that are not supported by previous case law, and are not supported by the controlling contracts.


17) Finally, it is clear that the Open Source community needs a business model that is sustainable, if it is to grow beyond a part-time avocation into an enterprise-trusted development model. Free Open Source software primarily benefits large vendors, which sell hardware and expensive services that support Linux, but not Linux itself. By providing Open Source software without a warranty, these largest vendors avoid significant costs while increasing their services revenue. Today, that's the viable Open Source business model. Other Linux companies have already failed and many more are struggling to survive. Few are consistently profitable. It's time for everyone else in the industry, individuals and small corporations, to under this and to implement our own business model - something that keeps us alive and profitable. In the long term, the financial stability of software vendors and the legality of their software products are more important to enterprise customers than free software. Rather than fight for the right for free software, it's far more valuable to design a new business model that enhances the stability and trustworthiness of the Open Source community in the eyes of enterprise customers.

Response to Paragraph 17:

"Finally, it is clear that the Open Source community needs a business model that is sustainable, ..."

It's been sustaining itself for 20 years; Linux, for 12 years. The SCO Group has never claimed a profitable quarter until this year, and those profits were due to one-time sales of perpetual licenses to Microsoft and Sun. Where will future revenues for SCO come from, Mr. McBride? It seems that The SCO Group itself needs to find "a business model that is sustainable."

"... if it is to grow beyond a part-time avocation into an enterprise-trusted development model."

It is clearly enterprise-trusted already. Were this not the case, you would be unable to claim that Linux has taken revenue away from SCO.

"Free Open Source software primarily benefits large vendors..."

Funny, but I find it very beneficial to have an operating system that I can legally use for free, that comes with source code so I can make my own modifications if desired, and that allows me to use my system without regard to proprietary end-user license obligations. But, hey, maybe I'm just a freak.

"By providing Open Source software without a warranty, these largest vendors avoid significant costs while increasing their services revenue."

Hmm, well, let's take a look at the warranty provided in Microsoft's End-User License Agreement for Windows XP Home. After all, that's got to be one of the most widely published and accepted warranty agreements in the world, right?

WARRANTY AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND ANY OTHER COUNTRY

LIMITED WARRANTY

LIMITED WARRANTY. Manufacturer warrants that (a) the SOFTWARE will perform substantially in accordance with the accompanying written materials for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of receipt, and (b) any Microsoft hardware accompanying the SOFTWARE will be free from defects in materials and workmanship under normal use and service for a period of one (1) year from the date of receipt. Any implied warranties on the SOFTWARE and Microsoft hardware are limited to ninety (90) days and one (1) year, respectively. Some states/jurisdictions do not allow limitations on duration of an implied warranty, so the above limitation may not apply to you.

CUSTOMER REMEDIES. Manufacturer's and its suppliers' entire liability and your exclusive remedy shall be, at Manufacturer's option, either (a) return of the price paid, or (b) repair or replacement of the SOFTWARE or hardware that does not meet this Limited Warranty and which is returned to Manufacturer with a copy of your receipt. This Limited Warranty is void if failure of the SOFTWARE or hardware has resulted from accident, abuse, or misapplication. Any replacement SOFTWARE or hardware will be warranted for the remainder of the original warranty period or thirty (30) days, whichever is longer.

NO OTHER WARRANTIES. To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, Manufacturer and its suppliers disclaim all other warranties, either express or implied, including, but not limited to implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, with regard to the SOFTWARE, the accompanying written materials, and any accompanying hardware. This limited warranty gives you specific legal rights. You may have others which vary from state/jurisdiction to state/jurisdiction.

NO LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, in no event shall Manufacturer or its suppliers be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation, special, incidental, consequential, or indirect damages for personal injury, loss of business profits, business interruption, loss of business information, or any other pecuniary loss) arising out of the use of or inability to use this product, even if Manufacturer has been advised of the possibility of such damages. In any case, Manufacturer's and its suppliers' entire liability under any provision of this agreement shall be limited to the amount actually paid by you for the SOFTWARE and/or Microsoft hardware. Because some states/jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion or limitation of liability for consequential or incidental damages, the above limitation may not apply to you.

Looks pretty minimal, doesn't it, Mr. McBride? Well, Microsoft is not SCO, to state the obvious. I'm sure SCO provides better warranties. Let's look at the warranties supplied in the SCO License for Intellectual Property in Linux:

7.0 LIMITATION OF WARRANTY

SCO MAKES NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WITH RESPECT TO ANY SOFTWARE OTHER THAN THE SCO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEFINED BY THIS AGREEMENT.

SCO WARRANTS THAT IT IS EMPOWERED TO GRANT THE RIGHTS GRANTED HEREIN. SCO DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE FUNCTION CONTAINED IN SCO PRODUCT WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS OR THAT ITS OPERATION WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR FREE.

ALL WARRANTIES, TERMS, CONDITIONS, REPRESENTATIONS, INDEMNITIES AND GUARANTEES WITH RESPECT TO THE SOFTWARE, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARISING BY LAW, CUSTOM, PRIOR ORAL OR WRITTEN STATEMENTS BY ANY PARTY OR OTHERWISE (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS) ARE HEREBY OVERRIDDEN, EXCLUDED AND DISCLAIMED. SOME STATES OR COUNTRIES DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO THE ABOVE EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. THIS WARRANTY GIVES YOU SPECIFIC LEGAL RIGHTS AND YOU MAY ALSO HAVE OTHER RIGHTS WHICH VARY FROM STATE TO STATE OR COUNTRY TO COUNTRY.

8.0 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL SCO OR ITS REPRESENTATIVES BE LIABLE FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE, OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, WHETHER FORESEEABLE OR UNFORESEEABLE, BASED ON YOUR CLAIMS OR THOSE OF YOUR CUSTOMERS (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF DATA, GOODWILL, PROFITS, USE OF MONEY OR USE OF THE SCO PRODUCTS, INTERRUPTION IN USE OR AVAILABILITY OF DATA, STOPPAGE OF OTHER WORK OR IMPAIRMENT OF OTHER ASSETS), ARISING OUT OF BREACH OR FAILURE OF EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY, BREACH OF CONTRACT, MISREPRESENTATION, NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY IN TORT OR OTHERWISE, EXCEPT ONLY IN THE CASE OF PERSONAL INJURY WHERE AND TO THE EXTENT THAT APPLICABLE LAW REQUIRES SUCH LIABILITY. IN NO EVENT WILL THE AGGREGATE LIABILITY WHICH SCO MAY INCUR IN ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING EXCEED THE TOTAL AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID BY YOU TO SCO FOR THE LICENSE OF THE SCO PRODUCT THAT DIRECTLY CAUSED THE DAMAGE.

SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE LIMITATION OF EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY FOR INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES SO THE ABOVE LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.

Hmm, "SCO makes no warranties of any kind..."? Just what are purchasers of the SCO IP license getting for their money, Mr. McBride?

Anyway, it looks like the GPL's warranty policy is right in line with industry standards, Microsoft and SCO included.

"Other Linux companies have already failed and many more are struggling to survive."

As in any business. And other Linux companies, such as Red Hat and SUSE are clearly quite successful. Last time I checked, for instance, Red Hat's market capitalization was roughly ten times that of SCO's.

"Few are consistently profitable."

The same can be said of most businesses, such as restaurants, book stores, and SCO.

"It's time for everyone else in the industry, individuals and small corporations, to under this..."

Huh?

"...and to implement our own business model - something that keeps us alive and profitable."

SCO's business model has proven to be not profitable. Why would anyone else want to implement it? The profits SCO did achieve in the most recent quarter are, arguably, due to SCO slashing its personel and associated office costs. Shrinking your assets is not generally considered a sustainable method for achieving profits over the long term; eventually, you tend to run out of assets.

"In the long term, the financial stability of software vendors and the legality of their software products are more important to enterprise customers than free software."

Agreed. This explains SCO's poor performance in the enterprise market.

"Rather than fight for the right for free software, it's far more valuable to design a new business model that enhances the stability and trustworthiness of the Open Source community in the eyes of enterprise customers."

From the point of view of the open source community, it seems pretty silly to abandon a business model that works.


18) A sustainable business model for software development can be built only on an intellectual property foundation. I invite the Open Source community to explore these possibilities for your own benefit within an Open Source model. Further, the SCO Group is open to ideas of working with the Open Source community to monetize software technology and its underlying intellectual property for all contributors, not just SCO.

Response to Paragraph 18:

"A sustainable business model for software development can be built only on an intellectual property foundation."

Such as the GPL's foundation on copyright law.

"I invite the Open Source community to explore these possibilities for your own benefit within an Open Source model."

We've been doing so for 20 years. We invite you, Mr. McBride, to explore our principles and ideas yourself, with an open mind and without the defamatory comments denigrating the open source community.

"Further, the SCO Group is open to ideas of working with the Open Source community to monetize software technology and its underlying intellectual property for all contributors, not just SCO."

Monetize: 1. To legalize as money 2. To coin into money: for example, to monetize gold 3. to give the character of money to. Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 1967.

Mr. McBride, I suspect that you are simply using the word "monetize" incorrectly. It's become a bad, sloppy, fashion among MBA's in recent years to use it as a synonym for the phrase "make profit from."

But, on the off chance that you chose the word with careful consideration and are using it metaphorically, the Linux, Open Source, and Free Software communities are already "monetizing" software technology. It is "monetized" every time a company saves several thousand dollars on software purchasers that can be used instead to further build the business and/or hire more employees, or share the savings in terms of higher salaries, or greater shareholder profits. It is "monetized" every time an administrator or developer customizes source code to enhance productivity for a company, an option not available under proprietary, closed source, code. It is "monetized" every time a technological enhancement or bug fix is contributed to the wider community, enabling the software to develop quicker pace than any proprietary company could achieve on its own, and saving the company the cost of applying the enhancement or bug fix again whenever it upgrades.

Your failure to grasp this concept, that "monetization" occurs at a faster pace and is shared more equitably under open source, and the GPL in particular, is one of the sorest points of contention between you and the open source community.


19) In the meantime, I will continue to protect SCO's intellectual property and contractual rights. The process moving forward will not be easy. It is easier for some in the Open Source community to fire off a "rant" than to sit across a negotiation table. But if the Open Source community is to become a software developer for global corporations, respect for intellectual property is not optional - it is mandatory. Working together, there are ways we can make sure this happens.

Response to Paragraph 19:

"In the meantime, I will continue to protect SCO's intellectual property..."

If you find any, please let us know. We would love to see it. Show it to us, so we can respect your copyrights by removing it from the Linux code base. But as long as you fail to show it to us, without NDA, then forgive us if the only rational response we can make is to ignore you as we would the boy who cried wolf.

"...and contractual rights."

Go to it. Just be sure to confine the remedies to people with whom you actually do have contracts. Seeking remedies from both the people you have contracts with and the end-users is considered "double-dipping", and is generally frowned upon in the courts.

"The process moving forward will not be easy. It is easier for some in the Open Source community to fire off a "rant" than to sit across a negotiation table."

Perhaps. However, if I may raise a counter-point, it would seem that SCO's problem is that SCO's onerous negotiating conditions have made it easier for IBM and Red Hat to fire off claims and counter-claims in court and in response. I suggest to you that SCO may want to reconsider it's own negotiating strategies and conditions.

"But if the Open Source community is to become a software developer for global corporations, respect for intellectual property is not optional - it is mandatory."

Agreed. Perhaps this explains Linux's global success in contrast to SCO's failures.

"Working together, there are ways we can make sure this happens."

Mr. McBride, working together, the Linux community is already making sure this happens. They are just doing it without you. Working with you is no longer an option. Your credibility is shot, and no one in the community will enter into a contractual agreement with a partner whose philosophy has been publicly stated to be "Contracts are what you use against those with whom you have relationships."


Best regards to all,

Darl McBride
CEO
The SCO Group

With all truth and sincerity,

John Gabriel
Computer, Networking, and Technical Consultant
Manhattan Borough, New York City
jgabriel66@yahoo.com

Re:Childish screening procedures. (3, Insightful)

bongoras (632709) | about 11 years ago | (#6930942)

It would be more effective if they actually HAD any job openings. As it is, it's sorta childish and lame. Nah nah, I won't hire and SCO people, nah nah... I mean even if I *could* hire people I wouldn't hire any SCO people... I mean... I mean... of all the people we aren't hiring because we don't have any openings, SCO people are at the top of the list.

grow up.

Re:Childish screening procedures. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6930944)

Well, there may be no real technical people left at SCO. Eh?

Seriously, I don't agree with much of what passes as "employment criteria" these days, this surely included. People have to eat. It would be a wonderful world, indeed, if we in the under class (less than $2 US million in the bank) could truely excersize the slightest choice.

I've been unemployed for 2 years. I'm really pretty good, and have lots of history to prove it. Now, these people would have whatever good people caught at SCO to put their homes, families, and retirements at real risk over this?

The very concept is as bad a policy as SCO's actions themselves.

Re:Childish screening procedures. (1)

frission (676318) | about 11 years ago | (#6930945)

no, not an "enemy of open source" but perhaps he's trying to cover his ass if he hires an SCO employee and there's some clause in the old contract that all UNIX related material they contribute to is now and forever part of UNIX, then you don't want to get caught in another lawsuit either.

Re:Childish screening procedures. (1)

NoOneInParticular (221808) | about 11 years ago | (#6930984)

It's not the guilt by association that makes them unhireable, it's the danger of finding yourself being sued by SCO that makes you not want to hire them.

Considering the ease at which SCO starts lawsuits on their alleged IP, it is not unimagenable that anyone that is tainted with knowledge of SCO's code will prompt a SCO lawsuit once he contributes to your codebase.

Re:Childish screening procedures. (1)

Merk (25521) | about 11 years ago | (#6931003)

Comparing one company screening people based on their having worked for an unethical company, and a country assisting the blacklisting of people who belonged to a political organization is unfair.

While it's a pain to do this to those who work at SCO and have no say in their company's major decisions, life is full of tough choices. If you choose to work for an unethical company, be it SCO, Monsanto, Philip Morris, or whatever, you have to know there will be consequences.

If companies knew that their peons would walk out when they started doing unethical things then there might be some incentive for them not to do it. Afterall, recent times have shown that we can't count on the justice system to fix things.

"I was just following orders" may work in the military, but us civies have choices, and we should be held accountable for them.

Re:Childish screening procedures. (1)

Zocalo (252965) | about 11 years ago | (#6931010)

It's also technically inaccurate too, since the "Santa Cruz Operation" hasn't existed since they were bought up by Caldera. It's now just "The SCO Group". It might be the same staff, but it's a completely different entity in a legal respect.

As Eric Raymond has said on numerous occasions, the Linux community should be above all this kind stuff; the pinnacles of maturity, reasonableness and responsible behaviour. Regardless of your opinions of ESR, he's making sense here, and having a policy of not hiring someone who didn't *immediately* leave his job at SCO on general principles is insane. "Sorry, hun, but I'm going to have to pimp you while I look for another job or the kids are going to go hungry and the mortgage will default." Yeah, right.

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6930745)

fp? w00t?

'We won't hire anyone who's been with SCO' (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6930746)

What a bunch of dumbasses. IF you want to protest about SCO, do it in a more mature way.

SCO's rebuttal (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6930749)

Linus to SCO: "Please Grow Up"

SCO to Linus: "My OS can beat up your OS. Nyah nyah nyah!"

Re:SCO's rebuttal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6930819)

hey you look! you used the word "butt" in your subject..

Re:SCO's rebuttal (2, Funny)

The Analog Kid (565327) | about 11 years ago | (#6930828)

Linus to SCO: "Please Grow Up"

SCO to Linus: "My OS can beat up your OS. Nyah nyah nyah!"


Linus to SCO(Rebuttle): Oh yeah, well your a poopy-pants.

SCO to Linus: Oh yeah, well I'm telling your mommy.

Re:SCO's rebuttal (4, Funny)

pope1 (40057) | about 11 years ago | (#6930841)

Darl Retorts:

My Code is Rubber, your Code is Glue,
Whatever I Code bounces off me and sticks with you until you pay me my f@!#ing $699 you Finnish Son of a @$#@$!

oh this is funny (5, Funny)

phunhippy (86447) | about 11 years ago | (#6930768)

All of our source code is out in the open, and we welcome you point to any particular piece you might disagree with.

Until then, please accept our gratitude for your submission

Haha.. thanks LINUS!! now i got dr. pepper all over my purty flat screen!!!!

Re:oh this is funny (3, Insightful)

Gibble (514795) | about 11 years ago | (#6930900)

That's whats so funny about this. If the linux community has this infringed code in it's source, then everyone can see it anyhow. So why would SCO want people to sign an NDA to see code that they allready can see?

Just point to the infringing code in the linux source...

Lottery (3, Funny)

lord_paladine (568885) | about 11 years ago | (#6930774)

From the article: "... and now seems to play the U.S. legal system like a lottery."

SCO scratch off tickets? Now there's an idea!

childness hiring? (4, Insightful)

linuxislandsucks (461335) | about 11 years ago | (#6930777)

Come one people only the current top management of SCOX and Canopy are responsible and should be held accountable..

However, with the laying off of most of the r&d coders is there any one left that is accoutnable in nature?

Re:childness hiring? (1)

cybermace5 (446439) | about 11 years ago | (#6930871)

However, with the laying off of most of the r&d coders is there any one left that is accoutnable in nature?

I think the key part of that sentence would be is there any one left. I doubt SCO is currently hard at work on the next OS revolution. However, it looks like they have a more promising business model than chrisd's company....

Digital Certificate? (2, Interesting)

bryam (449040) | about 11 years ago | (#6930787)

IP problem: How could you said that this letter was created by Linus?
Some reference to the original e-mail of Linus?

Acronyms :-) (2, Insightful)

schnarff (557058) | about 11 years ago | (#6930788)

Hmmm, maybe they're not Smoking Crack, Obviously as I suggested yesterday...instead, they're Spoiled Children, Obviously. :-)

They ARE spoiled children ... (1)

burgburgburg (574866) | about 11 years ago | (#6930919)

who just happen to be smoking massive quantities of crack. Bagfuls of rock. Hooked to the pipe.

Only a matter of time....... (4, Funny)

bishopi (662205) | about 11 years ago | (#6930804)

......until this is all over, and just desserts are dished up......

Post-trial Justice [temporal-acuity.net]

Ian

If we had openings, we wouldn't hire you (5, Funny)

mpsmps (178373) | about 11 years ago | (#6930813)


chrisd notes that his company is making SCO employees unhireable.

I'd complain about how immature the policy is except that if you read the page, you see that they are not hiring, so SCO employees are ineligible for all zero of the openings they have available.

Re:If we had openings, we wouldn't hire you (1)

VargrX (104404) | about 11 years ago | (#6930907)

chrisd notes that his company is making SCO employees unhireable.


I'd complain about how immature the policy is except that if you read the page, you see that they are not hiring, so SCO employees are ineligible for all zero of the openings they have available.


read further... they're deleting anything either from, or related to SCO without even looking at it. not cool at all.

Re:If we had openings, we wouldn't hire you (1)

AftanGustur (7715) | about 11 years ago | (#6930946)


... so SCO employees are ineligible for all zero of the openings they have available.

Freedom is about having a choise.

If the USA made a policy of not allowing any women on future space flights, you can be sure there would be a response..

SCO Childish (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6930814)

They must really believe this. Soon we'll hear zillion infinities lines plus their dads being bigger than our dads. It's *spelled* S C O, but it's pronouned "ass hats". Lawyers have pulses? This Comment was generated with the Comment-O-Matic for SCO Stories. [rageagainst.net]

Linus!!! (3, Funny)

Spackler (223562) | about 11 years ago | (#6930820)

Dear Linus,

You were a hero of mine, until this letter. Now, you are a SuperHero! The SuperBestFriends had an opening, but I would say it is now taken.

-Spack

morons to robbIE: please help US not bullow up (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6930823)

just kidding. we ?understand? that you're not (allowed to be) interested in anything that doesn't reek of corepirate nazi mammon.

we extend our deepest sympathies to the victims of cowardly greed/fear based aggression everywhere.

that old tune title (hope we don't get 'busted' for using it) "make the world go away", takes on new/varied meaning in these times.

the prevalent notion that 'everything will be taken care of' without yOUR knowledge/participation is insidiously misleading.

in our estimation, the biggest 'threat' against US (aside from continuing to fire bullinedly into the 'crowd', whilst demanding applause), would be a failure to recognize our 'role' in the problems. we're victims for sure, but whoare ALL the perpetrators (see also: corepirate nazi puppets), gets lost in the ?pr? ?firm? generated propaganda spew.

consult with/trust in yOUR creator. seek others of non-aggressive behaviours/intentions. that's the spirit.

the lights ARE coming up now. pay attention (to yOUR heart, for example). that could lead to new ways (see also: newclear power plan) of thinking about/dealing with, the needs/rights of others EVERYWHERE on the planet.

having the attention span of a gnat, & similar ambitions, might be ok if you are just planning to be a consumer/type one liners.

take care of each other, you're all we've got. we're here for you. get ready to see the light.

Hiring Policy (5, Insightful)

MSTCrow5429 (642744) | about 11 years ago | (#6930836)

"chrisd notes that his company is making SCO employees unhireable."

That's capricious and sick. It is not the rank and file who is responsible, it is the brass. To punish people who have done nothing wrong, guilt by association, is cruel and unfair. This would be like throwing an Enron middle-level mananger in prison simply because he/she worked for Enron. SCO isn't Nazi Germany, people!

Re:Hiring Policy (1)

SpamJunkie (557825) | about 11 years ago | (#6930902)

SCO isn't Nazi Germany, people!

Actually, I'm pretty sure they are. Damn fascists.

Re:Hiring Policy (0)

moz13 (673277) | about 11 years ago | (#6930927)

The middle management didnt know what the brass in Enron was doing. With SCO, every employee knows EXACTLY whats going on, and if they didnt agree with it at least somewhat, they would leave. At least if they were self respecting they would. Perhaps chrisd doesnt want to hire people who arent self respecting, or support a group like SCO. Its his right as an employer to deny such people employment at his company.

Re:Hiring Policy (1)

Fiveeight (610936) | about 11 years ago | (#6930971)

It's hardly the same as jailing people. They're just saying that they don't want to hire or work with people who either approve of SCO's actions, are too stupid to realise what a shakedown those actions are or don't have the courage to leave when they realise what's going on. That might be a very high standard to set, but I don't see why they can't set it.

I seriously doubt there are any laws preventing discrimination based on someone's previous actions, or lack of same.

Re:Hiring Policy (1)

Leffe (686621) | about 11 years ago | (#6930980)

Is it even legal to deny someone a job because of where they have worked before?

That's like denying people jobs just because they like people of the same sex.

Excellent points (4, Insightful)

Andy Dodd (701) | about 11 years ago | (#6930989)

Preventing an SCO employee from jumping ship by denying them a job opportunity *benefits SCO*.

Although a poster below made a good point - This could be intentional to avoid intellectual property problems. SCO noncompete agreements might likely make their employees ineligible to apply for employment at ChrisD's company in the first place.

That said, the wording of the statement on ChrisD's website is immature and vengeful.

More proper wording which I would accept is, "Due to intellectual property issues and conflicts of interest, we regret that we cannot hire former employees of the Santa Cruz Operation at this time."

Re:Hiring Policy (1)

Xerithane (13482) | about 11 years ago | (#6931012)

I agree with you.

You do not persecute a soldier for following orders. While I think that legally, and idealistically, they (Damage Studios) have every right to do it, I think it really is just a childish act. If it were IBM, or a "real" company I would probably complain about it.

The only reason why Damage is even known is because Chris used to work for VA, and was an editor on Slashdot. Having shitty concept art doesn't make a game.

Unhireable Ex-SCO people (5, Insightful)

NormalVisual (565491) | about 11 years ago | (#6930846)

I suspect that the reason that Damage is refusing to hire ex-SCO employees is to prevent any possible legal action on SCO's part - I would not put it past SCO to sue a new employer for misappropriation of trade secrets or any number of other things, given their track record. I really don't think it's a political statement at all.

Re:Unhireable Ex-SCO people (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 11 years ago | (#6930958)

Good point. Another point would be you can't really know what each employee's involvement in the SCO affair. Most low level people have 0 involvement with the suit, but you can't be sure. I wouldn't put it past those who are invovled to lie about it.

Equal Opportunity? (4, Insightful)

KodaK (5477) | about 11 years ago | (#6930848)

Hey Chrisd,

You can't seriously claim to be an Equal Opportunity Employer and at the same time reject applicants based on where they used to work. I know there's not a law but come on, that's the spirit of EOE.

Re:Equal Opportunity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6930923)

the spirit of the law is to show that there is supposedly no discrimination of national origin, color, creed, race, etc.

It has nothing to do with where you last worked.

Don't try to twist around what it was originally meant to stand for.

chrisd should be unhireable (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6930851)

Refusing to hire someone who happened to work at SCO when this whole fiasco started is stupid. How can a software engineer or similar employee in a company of that size help what management says?

chrisd is the real loser here as he can't even spell "received" correctly on his corporate hiring page!

Sad news ... Anna Lindh dead at 46 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6930879)

I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Whore/foreign minister Anna Lindh was found dead in the NK department store in Stockholm this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss her - even if you didn't agree with her whacko socialist politics, there's no denying her contributions to popular culture. Truly a Soviet Russian icon.

They didn't squander the IPO money (4, Interesting)

burgburgburg (574866) | about 11 years ago | (#6930884)

They shifted it in complicated maneuvers to raise the value of sister companies under the Canopy umbrella, allowing their stocks to be pumped and dumped (and allowing the increased value of their stocks to be used in further complicated maneuvers to increase the personal fortunes of Canopy top executives). They also used it to hire really expensive lawyers who have no real conception of IP law but understand the stock value of publicity, publicity, publicity.

What they didn't do was use it to make good products or a functional business. "Squander" implies they ever intended to try to do either of these.

By the way, am I the only one who always thinks about Resident Evil's Umbrella Corporation every time he hears the name Canopy?

Snowball's Chance in Hell (4, Funny)

Dissenter (16782) | about 11 years ago | (#6930888)

and now seems to play the U.S. legal system like a lottery
Not quite my friend. Somehow I think my Mega Millions ticket has a better chance of winning that SCO getting anything from the community.

Darl to Linux (5, Funny)

Mr. Darl McBride (704524) | about 11 years ago | (#6930889)

Darl here.

Alright, Linus. The gloves are off.

We'll now show the most damning evidence yet [qpine.net] . There we have it, we've presented the basis for not hundreds, not thousands, not tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands of derivative code in the Linux kernel.

Let's see you dig yourself out of this one, wunderkind.

I think (2, Insightful)

Znonymous Coward (615009) | about 11 years ago | (#6930896)

that the open source community should stop responging the SCO period. If you ignore them, maybe they will go away.

*sigh* (2, Insightful)

stratjakt (596332) | about 11 years ago | (#6930899)

I've always had respect for Linus, the respect that I don't have for other OSS "advocates" like Stallman, Raymond or Perens.

Simply because Linus is the guy who just practices what the rest preach. He just keeps his mouth shut for the most part and works on the code. Instead of pontificating, he produces something that proved that the OSS model can work.

He doesn't spout off into diatribes about free vs Free, he doesn't rant and rave about technologies like the TCPA, just comments on how they can be implemented in Linux.

Please, Linus, don't drag yourself down to the level of the foaming mouthed nut. There's no shortage of zealots to badmouth SCO, and you're merely preaching to the choir.

Ultimately all you'll do is damage your image, when someone mentions Stallman or Raymond, do you immediately think of code they've written, or an image of them jumping up and down on a soapbox?

Stick to the tech, keep being an inspiration to true geeks, and not anti-gumment nutjobs.

Re:*sigh* (2, Insightful)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | about 11 years ago | (#6930985)

Read his letter, I think you will find it lives up to your ideas of him. (It is very good. No posturing, no complaining, just a nice, sweet, 'show us the code, or please stop bugging daddy.')

Hiring ban (3, Funny)

AveryT (148004) | about 11 years ago | (#6930924)

chrisd notes that his company is making SCO employees unhireable.

So they're refusing to consider SCO employees for any of the open positions that they .. oh, they don't actually have any open positions right now.

Wow, that'll teach them a lesson.

Our daily SCO news.. (1)

its_the_muppet_show (697337) | about 11 years ago | (#6930934)

Sjeesh, it's gettin' really annoying all this talk about SCO. Thanks to mr. Thorvalds we have yet another SCO newsday.

But anyway, I think Linus is right. He gave the right answer, be polite, and say fsck off at the same time :). His way of communicating should be an example for all the OSS developers :).

Its still irritating anyhow.

Linus Flame (3, Insightful)

SyntheticTruth (17753) | about 11 years ago | (#6930939)

Linus' letter reminds me of a good example of a flame: biting, yet so intelligently written that you might miss it.

Today's top story (5, Funny)

Otter (3800) | about 11 years ago | (#6930941)

...but we wait with bated breath for when you will actually care to inform us about what you are blathering about.

The real shocker here, of course, is that a Linux advocate spelled "bated breath" correctly for the first time in recorded history.

Other responses (1)

blackp (217413) | about 11 years ago | (#6930952)

The article mentions response letters from Eric Raymond and Bruce Perens. Does anyone have links to these stories?

Re:Other responses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6931014)

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/10/14 59243&mode=thread&tid=130&tid=185&tid=187&tid=190& tid=88

Linus seems.. (2, Funny)

Ruie (30480) | about 11 years ago | (#6930960)

.. to have been reading a lot of Nigerian spam lately.

What's the point of making them unhireable? (2, Informative)

lar3ry (10905) | about 11 years ago | (#6930963)

SCO doesn't seem to have any employees other than lawyers and mouthpieces at present.

I doubt that anybody looking for a job in the software field would have SCO from May, 2003 on their resume.

Take that! (3, Funny)

Alizarin Erythrosin (457981) | about 11 years ago | (#6930970)

To paraphrase Kelso from That 70's Show:

"BUUUUUURRRRRRRNNN!"

Sorry, I just got caught up in the wicked burn. Linus is awesome, what can I say? He certainly has a way with words. I laughed so hard after reading that.

I'll hire SCO people! (4, Insightful)

puzzled (12525) | about 11 years ago | (#6930977)



And their first task will be going through the SCO customer list in my geographic area and whacking each and every SCO system they can locate.

You have to view it from their perspective - years, some times decades of hard work, stock in the company trapped by trading rules, and scam artists from Canopy making it all just a sick joke.

If you really want to jab SCO, find a job for *every* person there who does real work, and do it quick.

Karma whoring ... (2, Informative)

Etyenne (4915) | about 11 years ago | (#6930998)

Just the Torvald's letter ... hilarious !

---
Dear Darl,

Thank you so much for your letter.

We are happy that you agree that customers need to know that Open Source is legal and stable, and we heartily agree with that sentence of your letter. The others don't seem to make as much sense, but we find the dialogue refreshing.

However, we have to sadly decline taking business model advice from a company that seems to have squandered all its money (that it made off a Linux IPO, I might add, since there's a nice bit of irony there), and now seems to play the US legal system as a lottery. We in the Open Source group continue to believe in technology as a way of driving customer interest and demand.

Also, we find your references to a negotiating table somewhat confusing, since there doesn't seem to be anything to negotiate about. SCO has yet to show any infringing IP in the Open Source domain, but we wait with bated breath for when you will actually care to inform us about what you are blathering about.

All of our source code is out in the open, and we welcome you point to any particular piece you might disagree with.

Until then, please accept our gratitude for your submission,

Yours truly,

Linus Torvalds

That was brilliant (1)

sdcharle (631718) | about 11 years ago | (#6931008)

Linus really can 'play the game' when he needs to. Unlike Darl's letter (or even Perens' and ESR's) his is very brief and to-the-point, the sort of thing that could play well in the mainstream media (if it gets coverage).

That it's condescending and funny is great, too. Here's hoping it gets some play in the outside of /. world...

Whoop D Doo! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6931021)

I guess you guys can go jerk off because your God Linus has spoken...

Mod me a troll, I don't care! But you guys oogle over Linus like he's a freaking supermodel or something.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>