Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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

Thank you!

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

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

McBride's New Open Letter on Copyrights

CowboyNeal posted more than 10 years ago | from the can't-go-a-day-without-some-sco dept.

Caldera 770

dtfinch writes "An open letter was posted today by Darl McBride, where he restates his claim that the GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, patent laws, copyright laws, and the DMCA. Mostly he just builds up a false image of the Free Software Foundation and open source supporters claiming that they have no respect for intellectual property and believe copyrights should be eliminated, then attacks that image, AKA the straw man attack. Nothing we haven't seen before."

cancel ×

770 comments

FP!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7636272)

first!!!!

Darl McBride owns you all (-1)

Bitter Old Man (572131) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636273)

fags.

Irony abounds. (5, Funny)

cgranade (702534) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636278)

Hm... Darl McBride writes an open letter. I thought that openness was against the US Constitution, ad nauseum.

Re:Irony abounds. (3, Funny)

pr0f3550r (553601) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636360)

I think he feels that if he repeats his diatribe often enough that even he will begin to believe it.

Re:Irony abounds. (2, Funny)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636489)

Yeah, but he probably believes the mothership will rescue him when this all falls apart. He certainly believes in the nose-candy fairy.

Re:Irony abounds. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7636398)

Darl is on record as being a huge backer of open systems [google.com] .

Ok then. (4, Insightful)

dema (103780) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636281)

Nothing we haven't seen before.

Yet it qualifies as news here. No wonder McBride keeps running his mouth (:

Re:Ok then. (5, Insightful)

Zeelan (533372) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636316)

Ah... but we haven't had a good SCO letter of FUD to harp on for a couple of days.

Myself... I found the part where he talked about the glory of copyright where the author could do anything he wanted with it and then moaned and complained that he can't take GPL code and make it proprietary rather poetic.

mirror (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7636283)

hehe, slashdot the bastard! December 4, 2003 An Open Letter: Since last March The SCO Group ("SCO") has been involved in an increasingly rancorous legal controversy over violations of our UNIX intellectual property contract, and what we assert is the widespread presence of our copyrighted UNIX code in Linux. These controversies will rage for at least another 18 months, until our original case comes to trial. Meanwhile, the facts SCO has raised have become one of the most important and hotly debated technology issues this year, and often our positions on these issues have been misunderstood or misrepresented. Starting with this letter, I'd like to explain our positions on the key issues. In the months ahead we'll post a series of letters on the SCO Web site ( www.sco.com ). Each of these letters will examine one of the many issues SCO has raised. In this letter, we'll provide our view on the key issue of U.S. copyright law versus the GNU GPL (General Public License). SCO asserts that the GPL, under which Linux is distributed, violates the United States Constitution and the U.S. copyright and patent laws. Constitutional authority to enact patent and copyright laws was granted to Congress by the Founding Fathers under Article I, 8 of the United States Constitution: Congress shall have Power ... [t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. This Constitutional declaration gave rise to our system of copyrights and patents. Congress has enacted several iterations of the Copyright Act. The foundation for current copy protection in technology products is grounded in the 1976 Copyright Act. The 1976 Act grew out of Congressional recognition that the United States was rapidly lagging behind Japan and other countries in technology innovation. In order to protect our ability to innovate and regain global leadership in technology, Congress extended copyright protection to technology innovations, including software. The 1976 Act had the desired effect. The U.S. economy responded rapidly, and within 10 years had regained global technology leadership. Most recently, Congress has adopted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") to protect the intellectual property rights embodied in digital products and software. Congress adopted the DMCA in recognition of the risk to the American economy that digital technology could easily be pirated and that without protection, American companies would unfairly lose technology advantages to companies in other countries through piracy, as had happened in the 1970's. It is paramount that the DMCA be given full force and effect, as envisioned by Congress. The judgment of our elected officials in Congress is the law of the land in the U.S. copyright arena, and should be respected as such. If allowed to work properly, we have no doubt that the DMCA will create a beneficial effect for the entire economy in digital technology development, similar to the benefits created by the 1976 Copyright Act. However, there is a group of software developers in the United States, and other parts of the world, that do not believe in the approach to copyright protection mandated by Congress. In the past 20 years, the Free Software Foundation and others in the Open Source software movement have set out to actively and intentionally undermine the U.S. and European systems of copyrights and patents. Leaders of the FSF have spent great efforts, written numerous articles and sometimes enforced the provisions of the GPL as part of a deeply held belief in the need to undermine or eliminate software patent and copyright laws. The software license adopted by the GPL is called "copy left " by its authors. This is because the GPL has the effect of requiring free and open access to Linux (and other) software code and prohibits any proprietary use thereof. As a result, the GPL is exactly opposite in its effect from the "copy right " laws adopted by the US Congress and the European Union. This stance against intellectual property laws has been adopted by several companies in the software industry, most notably Red Hat. Red Hat's position is that current U.S. intellectual property law "impedes innovation in software development" and that "software patents are inconsistent with open source/free software." Red Hat has aggressively lobbied Congress to eliminate software patents and copyrights. (see http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html ). At SCO we take the opposite position. SCO believes that copyright and patent laws adopted by the United States Congress and the European Union are critical to the further growth and development of the $186 billion global software industry, and to the technology business in general. In taking this position SCO has been attacked by the Free Software Foundation, Red Hat and many software developers who support their efforts to eliminate software patents and copyrights. Internet chat boards are filled with attacks against SCO, its management and its lawyers. Personal threats abound. At times the nature of these attacks is breathtaking - the emotions are obscuring the very clear and important legal issues SCO has raised. This is to be expected when the controversy concerns such deeply held beliefs. Despite the raw emotions, however, the issue is clear: do you support copyrights and ownership of intellectual property as envisioned by our elected officials in Congress and the European Union, or do you support "free" - as in free from ownership - intellectual property envisioned by the Free Software Foundation, Red Hat and others? There really is no middle ground. The future of the global economy hangs in the balance. As SCO prepares new initiatives to protect our intellectual property rights, we do so with the knowledge that the most powerful voices in our democratic process give clear support to the intellectual property laws we seek to enforce. As stated above, the United States Congress has adopted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to give clear and unequivocal protection to copyright management information distributed with software. We are also in accord with important decisions of the United States Supreme Court in the copyright area. In the case of Eldred v. Ashcroft, decided earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court gave clear and unequivocal support to Congress's authority to legislate in the copyright arena. The European Union remains firmly in support of intellectual property laws, as embodied generally in the Berne Convention. Thus, SCO is confident that the legal underpinning of our arguments is sound. We understand that the litigation process is never easy for any party involved. Our stance on this issue has made SCO very unpopular with some. But we believe that we will prevail through the legal system, because our position is consistent with the clear legal authority set down by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court and the European Union. To understand the strength of this authority, it is interesting to read the recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Eldred v. Ashcroft , 123 S.Ct. 769 (2003). In Eldred , key arguments similar to those advanced by the open source movement with respect to copyright laws were fully considered, and rejected, by the U.S. Supreme Court. This suggests that however forcefully Open Source advocates argue against copyright and patent laws, and whatever measures they take to circumvent those laws, our intellectual property laws will carry the day. The majority opinion in Eldred was delivered by Justice Ginsberg, in which Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter and Thomas joined. Dissenting opinions were filed by Justice Stevens and Justice Breyer. In Eldred , the petitioner argued that the Copyright Term Extension Act enacted by Congress in 1998 was unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that Congress had full constitutional authority to pass the Extension Act. The Court's analysis of the constitutional foundation of the Copyright Act applies directly to the debate between SCO and FSF / Red Hat regarding intellectual property protection for software. SCO argues that the authority of Congress under the U.S. Constitution to "promote the Progress of Science and the useful arts..." inherently includes a profit motive, and that protection for this profit motive includes a Constitutional dimension. We believe that the "progress of science" is best advanced by vigorously protecting the right of authors and inventors to earn a profit from their work. The Free Software Foundation, Red Hat and other GPL advocates take the contrary position. The FSF and Red Hat believe that the progress of science is best advanced by eliminating the profit motive from software development and insuring free, unrestricted public access to software innovations. The Free Software Foundation was established for this purpose. The GPL implements this purpose. Red Hat speaks for a large community of software developers dedicated to this purpose. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has dramatically undercut this position with its guidance in Eldred in how to define the term "promote the Progress of Science and the useful arts..." under the Constitution. In Eldred , the U.S. Supreme Court addressed for the first time in recent history the Constitutional meaning of the term "promote the Progress of Science and the useful arts..." Seven Supreme Court justices defined the term one way - and SCO agrees with this definition. Two dissenting justices defined the term differently. Let's consider the dissenting view. Justice Breyer articulated a dissenting view that the Constitutional objective of "promot [ing] the Progress of Science" is oriented to benefit the general public good, rather than create a private reward for authors. Justice Breyer posited: The Clause does not exist "to provide a special private benefit," ... but to "stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good.... The "reward" is a means, not an end. 123 S.Ct. at 802-03. Under this view of the U.S. Constitution, Justice Breyer would find a Congressional act unconstitutional if, among other things, "the significant benefits that it bestows are private, not public." Of course, this argument is at the very core of the positions advanced by the Free Software Foundation, Red Hat, and the General Public License. According to the FSF, Red Hat and under the GPL, private benefits are impediments to the general advancement of science and technology, and need to be eliminated entirely from the software industry and the process of software development. But, unfortunately for the FSF, Red Hat and others, this dissenting view was squarely rejected in the majority opinion delivered for the Court by Justice Ginsberg. The majority position specifically acknowledges the importance of the profit motive as it underpins the constitutionality of the Copyright Act. In expressing this position, the majority opinion stated as follows: Justice Stevens' characterization of reward to the author as "a secondary consideration" of copyright law ... understates the relationship between such rewards and the relationship between such rewards and the "Progress of Science." As we have explained, "[t]he economic philosophy behind the [Copyright [C]lause ... is the conviction that encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance public welfare through the talents of authors and inventors." ... Accordingly, "copyright law celebrates the profit motive, recognizing that the incentive to profit from the exploitation of copyrights will redound to the public benefit by resulting in the proliferation of knowledge.... The profit motive is the engine that ensures the progress of science."... Rewarding authors for their creative labor and "promot [ing] ... Progress" are thus complementary; as James Madison observed, in copyright "[t]he public good fully coincides ... with the claims of individuals." The Federalist No. 43, p. 272 (D. Rossiter ed.1961.) Justice Breyer's assertion that "copyright statutes must serve public, not private, ends" ... similarly misses the mark. The two ends are not mutually exclusive; copyright law serves public ends by providing individuals with an incentive to pursue private ones. 123 S.Ct. at 785, fn. 18; emphasis in original. Based on the views of the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court, we believe that adoption and use of the GPL by significant parts of the software industry was a mistake. The positions of the Free Software Foundation and Red Hat against proprietary software are ill-founded and are contrary to our system of copyright and patent laws. We believe that responsible corporations throughout the IT industry have advocated use of the GPL without full analysis of its long-term detriment to our economy. We are confident that these corporations will ultimately reverse support for the GPL, and will pursue a more responsible direction. In the meantime, the U.S. Congress has authorized legal action against copyright violators under the Copyright Act and its most recent amendment, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. SCO intends to fully protect its rights granted under these Acts against all who would use and distribute our intellectual property for free, and would strip out copyright management information from our proprietary code, use it in Linux, and distribute it under the GPL. We take these actions secure in the knowledge that our system of copyright laws is built on the foundation of the U.S. Constitution and that our rights will be protected under law. We do so knowing that those who believe "software should be free" cannot prevail against the U.S. Congress and voices of seven U.S. Supreme Court justices who believe that "the motive of anal sex is the engine that ensures the shoving of greased up yoda dolls." Sincerely, Darl McBride President & CEO The SCO Group, Inc.

dont forget (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7636285)

to pay your $699 fee you clock smoking teabaggers

basis in law! (5, Interesting)

potpie (706881) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636288)

From Linuxtoday.com: "The GPL is based on copyright law, unlike the 'shrink wrap' licences we are familiar with, which are based on contract law. Most countries worldwide have signed the Berne Copyright Convention, which protects software automatically upon creation. So the GPL has a more solid international grounding than if it were based on contract law, which can vary greatly from country to country..."

Re:basis in law! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7636422)

And if linuxtoday.com says it, it must be true!

Nothing we haven't seen before (2, Insightful)

buffer-overflowed (588867) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636289)

Ok, then just copy paste links to every other slashdot discussion that's been had on this subject to date.

Unless there's something new to say, that is.

In summary:
SCO is smoking crack
Their case has no merit
yada yada yada

Re:Nothing we haven't seen before (5, Insightful)

Trepalium (109107) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636481)

Personally, I like what Linus had to say about this in an Infoworld interview [infoworld.com] .
"I'm a big believer in copyrights," Torvalds wrote in an e-mail interview. "Of all the intellectual property (laws), copyright ... is the only one that is expressly designed so that individual people can (and do) get them without having scads of lawyers on their side."

"If Darl McBride was in charge, he'd probably make marriage unconstitutional too, since clearly it de-emphasizes the commercial nature of normal human interaction, and probably is a major impediment to the commercial growth of prostitution," he wrote.

Clear, concise, and to the point.

SCO is like the Nazis... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7636292)

You fight them, but they turn out to be right in the end...

Search (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7636293)

Searched the web for darl mcbride tosser.

Results 1 - 2 of about 5.

Search took 0.18 seconds.

Tip: In most browsers you can just hit the return key instead of clicking on the search button.

I'll reset my watch (1)

AlgoRhythm (701779) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636294)

Thanks Darl, I was just thinking it'd been a while since I last set my watch. Now I know I'll be on time!

You'll have to excuse me this time (1)

endeitzslash (570374) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636295)

if I don't RTFA. I just ate and I'm pretty sure it would make me feel nauseous.

Re:You'll have to excuse me this time (1)

Zeelan (533372) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636335)

It would have my friend... it would have. Then again sense you look like a smart young lad I'm sure that you could probable 'write' the open letter yourself! It is that predictable.

If it is nothing new... (3, Insightful)

Valar (167606) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636296)

WHY post about it? I mean, come on. We're going to hear nothing but bullshit from SCO until they go under, why even bother listening? The only possibly important part will be the court hearings and we have awhile before those.

Everyone, breathe in, breathe out. Chill. Just chill.

Re:If it is nothing new... (4, Insightful)

cgranade (702534) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636325)

Because someone new to the controversy, like some small-time CEO that thinks Linux is a character in Peanuts, might read it and wet his pants over it, so we have to respond to it, and make ourselves aware so that if our companies get cold feet about Linux adoption, we can rebut each SCO argument, and reassure our CEOs.

AKA the straw man attack (1)

Diver777 (614939) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636298)

Thank god people are picking up on such simple, yet often unnoticed, ways to redirect an argument, and argue on the new point instead of the original. AKA the straw man attack

constitutionality (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636301)

SCO asserts that the GPL, under which Linux is distributed, violates the United States Constitution and the U.S. copyright and patent laws. Constitutional authority to enact patent and copyright laws was granted to Congress by the Founding Fathers under Article I, 8 of the United States Constitution:

...

The software license adopted by the GPL is called "copy left " by its authors. This is because the GPL has the effect of requiring free and open access to Linux (and other) software code and prohibits any proprietary use thereof. As a result, the GPL is exactly opposite in its effect from the "copy right " laws adopted by the US Congress and the European Union.

What a fucking douchebag. Darl, it's called contract law. Look into it.

Might Darl be my hero? (1)

bfree (113420) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636306)

It's possible? Why? Check out this quote:
It is paramount that the DMCA be given full force and effect, as envisioned by Congress.
If SCO make enough noise about the DMCA they could take that out for us aswell!

Re:Might Darl be my hero? (1)

Yenhsrav_Keviv (694947) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636367)

If SCO make enough noise about the DMCA they could take that out for us aswell!

and while they're at it, the mpaa, riaa, m$, and all the other bullshit companies

closed source please (4, Funny)

Camel Pilot (78781) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636307)

Hey Dayl please keep your letters like the Unix source and your mind - closed.

Left something out? (5, Funny)

KarMann (121054) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636309)

What, nothing about it violating the Ten Commandments to boot?

Re:Left something out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7636474)

It was the 11 commandments, but then Saint iGNUtious [stallman.org] decreed that it be called the 10 GNU/Commandments and the Lord had a Mighty Rage and sent pestilence and Darl "smoking up makes me feel good" McBride to dwell upon the earth and keep the lawyers employed.

Repeat after me... (-1, Troll)

Steve 'Rim' Jobs (728708) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636310)

SCO cannot get away with this bull. SCO will not get away with this bull.

The question of code history is one I asked a *long* time ago; probably the first I heard of this SCO bs. I believe they wrote a little C program that crawls the source tree and looks for similar lines of code. Hell, I could write a program like that, make it compare two source trees that make up 10,000 lines of code, and have it print out that 1,000,000 of those 10,000 lines are identical. Just like the ad for PC-Lint in the programming magazines.

Darl McBride's silly little company is acting just like the idiot who was sitting in a cafe one day. When the waitress came to take his order, the man asked her to sign and date some official documents certifying that he had been in that cafe at that time and date, with records of what he ordered, how long he stayed, etc. The waitress was confused about this, but the man claimed that he was very paranoid of someday being framed of a crime, and therefore wanted a written alibi for every waking moment of his life. He shows the waitress a calendar book with exact notations of every step he had ever taken. Suddenly, the police storms into the establishment and asks the gentleman if he goes by such and such a name. He answers affirmatively. They asked him if he had been involved in a jewelry store robbery which took place at 1221 East West Street several nights prior, at 12:31 AM. As he had proof of everything he had ever done, he opened his book, flipped to the day and hour in question, and read aloud from his book, "Jewelry store robbery at 1221 East West Street, 12:31 AM." Before he realized what a stupid error he had made, the police snatched him and he was off to jail.

With that in mind, here is an open letter to SCO CEO Darl McBride:

Dear Darl,

I do not believe any of your company's claims. In fact, I believe quite the opposite: I believe that SCO's software is composed 100% of code your company deliberately stole from other companies. Because your company stole code from the Linux kernel, you later found that code and wrongly believe that the theft occured in the other direction. Further, I strongly believe that with your company's shoddy record keeping, you cannot prove the origin of your code, so it is therefore impossible to prove your false claims of its being misappropriated into Linux. I further believe that even if your company could produce such proof, the effects of doing so would be adverse for you, as the records would clearly indicate the thefts that SCO deliberately performed.

Oh yeah, and one other thing: In your poorly written, grammatically incorrect, misspelled "open letter" to the free software community, you deliberately took some quotes out of context. This was silly because the misquoted documents are readily available for all to see your blatent and stupid attempt. To demonstrate the effect of misquoting, I offer the following text, quoted directly from your letter:

My company, the SCO Group ... illegally copied ... the free Linux operating system. In doing this we ... adversely affect the ... credibility of ... SCO. SCO ... violates ... Linux ... intellectual property rights. This is improper. SCO ... has forfeited its rights to this code. SCO ... copyright ownership ... is null and void. SCO ... needs a business model that is sustainable, if it is to grow beyond a part-time avocation into an enterprise-trusted development model. Rather than fight for the right for free software ... I invite the Open Source community to ... fire off a "rant" ... across a negotiation table. [R]espect for intellectual property is not [an option]...

Best regards to all,

Darl McBride
CEO
The SCO Group

How does that feel, Darl?

MOD PARENT DOWN (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7636336)

read his journal...

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7636372)

I'll seconded that

Re:Repeat after me... (1)

hawkbug (94280) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636410)

"Hell, I could write a program like that, make it compare two source trees that make up 10,000 lines of code, and have it print out that 1,000,000 of those 10,000 lines are identical."

Hmm.... 1,000,000 out of 10,000.... Interesting math. I bet not even SCO would would use that kind of math in their logic! Oh wait, we are talking about SCO here....

Parent is a repost troll (2, Insightful)

sbszine (633428) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636421)

Check his journal for details.

(Credit where it's due [slashdot.org] .)

MOD PARENT DOWN, READ JOURNAL, PARENT IS TROLL (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7636491)

He is a karma-whoring troll [slashdot.org] . Mod him down.

AGAIN?!?! (1, Troll)

wrinkledshirt (228541) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636312)

Nothing we haven't seen before.

Indeed. It's just become so predictable by this point there's no sense paying attention to it anymore. It's so out of my own hands I'm just giving up, taking some personal hybernation time on this issue, and coming back when IBM's lawyers are finished with this.

In short: Ask not for whom the Darl trolls. He trolls for thee, not me.

Yep, the GPL is REALLY BAD! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7636314)

Darl missed a few salient points that I will enumerate:

1) The GPL kills small cute furry animals.
2) The GPL causes cancer in laboratory animals.
3) The GPL encourages terrorism.
4) It hurts THE CHILDREN.
5) Reciting the text of the GPL backwards will cause the appearance of the Anti-Christ and will initiate the apocalypse.

Re:Yep, the GPL is REALLY BAD! (1)

Repran (560270) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636483)

6) It makes the baby Jesus cry

if it's yours... you can give it away! (3, Insightful)

potpie (706881) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636315)

from the article:
"The software license adopted by the GPL is called "copy left " by its authors. This is because the GPL has the effect of requiring free and open access to Linux (and other) software code and prohibits any proprietary use thereof. As a result, the GPL is exactly opposite in its effect from the "copy right " laws adopted by the US Congress and the European Union."

This makes it seem as though software writers are being persecuted by having their code forcibly ripped from their hands and given away for free. What new (or revivalist?) idiocy is this? They left out the whole part where the creator chooses to release it under the GPL or not.

He's no longer with us.... (1)

TooEasy (540047) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636318)

This guy is way out of control...I'm really beginning to think he has completely lost it. Doesn't he realize that the GPL is based on Copyrights? I mean.....HELLO...Earth to Darl...You there?

Re:He's no longer with us.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7636416)

Has any living being actually seen Darl? I haven't. My guess is that he will invariably fit into a serious comedian cut-out! Boy this is too much to handle..!!! Did u realize how many souls got a chance to laugh at once - somewhere they might have recorded atleast a 2 rischter earthquake by now!!! Darl, come on do a movie.. sci-fi-comedy!!

Linux Issues (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7636324)

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Open Source fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Linux box (a P4 3200 w/1024 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Athlon 900 running Windows XP, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Linux box, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, Mozilla will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even vi is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Linux machines, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Linux box that has run faster than its Windows counterpart, despite the Linux machine's faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 3200 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that Linux is a "superior" OS.

Open Source addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use an Open Source over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

Re:Linux Issues (1)

martinX (672498) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636430)

I know what you mean. I mean, my Mac is just as slow.

What's this "Post Anonymously" box do?

Oooo, A brave AC flame (1)

wardomon (213812) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636455)

My Linux boxes run circles around my Windows boxes and they never, let me say that a little louder, NEVER crash. I think you're experiencing the ID-10-T error.

Troll food (1)

arevos (659374) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636457)

I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Linux box (a P4 3200 w/1024 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder.

Sure someone hasn't 0wned your box? :)

At home, on my Athlon 900 running Windows XP, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Linux box, the same operation would take about 2 minutes.

Two minutes? Damn, looks like your Windows box is 0wned too. Takes me 10 seconds to copy a 20 meg file on my Athlon 1200 Linux box.

Hate to say this, but your boxen are some lucky skiddie's prize bitches.

Even vi is straining to keep up as I type this.

Wow. You actually took the time to learn Vi whilst simultaniously loathing Linux?

"Gaaah! Hate Linux! Must troll slashdot! But... will... learn... Vi. Escape-colon-double-you. What that mean? Graaah! Getting angriererer."

Open Source over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

Cheaper systems? You get paid money to use some other OS? How much per copy? Because I could use some spare cash.

Re:Linux Issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7636477)


I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Open Source fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Linux box (a P4 3200 w/1024 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Linux machines, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Linux box that has run faster than its Windows counterpart, despite the Linux machine's faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 3200 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that Linux is a "superior" OS.

Offer your employer a refund. You've been overcharging them. Its the moral thing to do. Oh... wait... you're a Windows zealot. Morality isn't an issue for you. Nevermind.

The open letter they discarded (5, Funny)

beej (82035) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636327)

Dear Fucking Linux Hippies,

Why can't you just pay us. You know you want to.
Love, SCO
[Shamelessly ripped from a couple friends of mine. This edition Copyright 2003 by Beej Jorgensen.]

Has to be said... (1)

eurleif (613257) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636337)

The GPL does not violate copyright laws. It doesn't stop SCO or anyone else from distributing *their* software how they want, it just says what you have to do in order to use *our* software. That's what a license does.

deconstucting the constitution (5, Interesting)

segment (695309) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636338)

Congress shall have Power ... [t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

Nowhere do I recall ever reading anything on compensation, that to me is more of an ethical issue if you ask me, but IANAL so I really don't want to stick my foot in my mouth... Or the kb in my ass. As I take the Constitution regarding copyrights is just as stated 'securing for limited times the exclusive right to their work'. SCO is turning this into a circus fanfare with a) either money the underlying issue, or b) other entities are using SCO as a puppet to do their deeds.

However, there is a group of software developers in the United States, and other parts of the world, that do not believe in the approach to copyright protection mandated by Congress. In the past 20 years, the Free Software Foundation and others in the Open Source software movement have set out to actively and intentionally undermine the U.S. and European systems of copyrights and patents.

This is serioulsy bold, and slanderous statement of this guy to make, and I'm wondering who's going to be the first to open a can of lawsuit ass on SCO. It's one thing to make known your beliefs, but to claim someone is intentionally breaking a law is no laughing matter. Pretty ballsy move. Stupid but ballsy.

Leaders of the FSF have spent great efforts, written numerous articles and sometimes enforced the provisions of the GPL as part of a deeply held belief in the need to undermine or eliminate software patent and copyright laws.

Know something, I couldn't even finish reading it because it's so dull, overrated, cumbersome to understand, and downright dumb at this point. Isn't it about time someone maybe IBM or some other bigwig came in the picture, did a hostile takeover and demoted this clown to mailroom janitor, or parking lot car washer.

propaganda (1)

Camel Pilot (78781) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636341)

This latest little piece from SCO tops anything the Iragi Info Minister ever spun.

First please take note SCO the GPL is based on the notion of intellectual property (that would be the stuff you are trying to highjack) and firmly rests on Copyright law.

As far as "the motive of profit is the engine that ensures the progress of science" from whence do you quote this little jewel. I am sure after Einstien sent in his little paper he was thinking "oh boy if I pull this on off I will be set for life".

laughably weak (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7636342)

I'm not even remotely nervous about this case anymore. Paraphrasing his argument: intellectual property laws are critical to business (agreed), open-source advocates disagree with a lot of intellectual property laws (irrelevant generalization), and the fact that they share information under their own terms should be illegal. That last point is patently ridiculous. OSS people can share or not share their own work under whatever terms they like. They cannot share SCO's work without SCO's permission, but that's fine because nobody wants SCO's work anyway.

Yahoo! Messenger Exploit.... (o/t but important!) (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7636345)


Yahoo Instant Messenger has security flaw


A security hole in Yahoo's Messenger could allow attackers to run their own code on computers using the program.

The buffer overrun vulnerability was found in a file named "yauto.dll," which is an ActiveX component of Messenger software versions up to 5.6.0.1347, according to a security alert released by Copenhagen security company Secunia.

Yahoo is working to verify the report and develop a patch for Messenger.

ActiveX is a Microsoft technology that allows software developers to create small, reusable bits of code, called "controls" that enable programs to share information over computer networks and the Internet.

Attackers could trigger a buffer overrun on machines running Messenger by sending a long stream of data in the form of a web page URL to a vulnerable function within yauto.dll, crashing the application or allowing the attacker to place his or her own malicious code on the machine, according to Secunia.

To launch an attack, hackers could set up a web page, then lure Messenger users into visiting the site and clicking on a link that triggers the buffer overrun and runs the attack code, Secunia said.

In buffer overflow attacks, hackers use flaws in a software program's underlying code to overwrite areas of the computer's memory, replacing legitimate computer instructions with bad data or other instructions.

Secunia rated the Messenger vulnerability "highly critical", saying that researchers tested the hole and successfully exploited it by downloading and running a Trojan horse program.

Messenger users running vulnerable versions of the program were advised to remove yauto.dll from their computer hard drive. Users should also consider modifying their web browser configuration to prevent ActiveX controls and Active Scripting from running, except on approved websites, Secunia advised

Read [computerweekly.com] all about it in ComputerWeekly!

Desperation (1)

gcaseye6677 (694805) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636347)

It appears the SCO stock price [yahoo.com] pump is wearing out. Today's FUD did not have the effect they are used to getting. What will be plan C once the stock scam no longer works?

Dear Darl, (-1, Troll)

Steve 'Rim' Jobs (728708) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636349)

As a contributer to the Linux kernel and other GPL'd software, I have decided to start a new licensing program. Your company will be required to pay a fee of $5,000 USD per cpu on all installations of Linux you use or sell which include my code. Regrettably, I cannot tell you which lines these are, as doing so would my trade secrets to the world.

Also, I have identified numerous cases in which lines of my code were copied into the source for your Unixware product. The same licensing terms I have descibed above will therefore apply to Unixware.

I have sent letters to all 5 of your customers informing them of this new policy. I understand Sun has also been in touch with them.

I will be contacting you soon to discuss payment options.

Thank you.

If it weren't for Stallman... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7636351)

If it weren't for Stallman and others acting like obnoxious 5 year olds to get their attention in public, people wouldn't believe this drivel about Free Software.

But since they scream, take over public hearings, etc, they have created a simpathetic public.

If I understod correctly (1)

justsomebody (525308) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636352)

Darl is saying that all rights for non profit are disabled.

Does that mean that anyone can:

1. go to Pentagon and take one Atom bomb. If I remember correctly they are illegaly competing as non-profit organization with profit weapon traders, thus destroying their bussines?
2. Go to university where students papers are disposed for viewing and proclaim them as mine since they are non-profit users
3. Basicaly take anything what non-profit users have done, since I own a company?

Re:If I understod correctly (5, Insightful)

Platinum Dragon (34829) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636440)

Darl is saying that all rights for non profit are disabled.

More like he's saying that a code author has no right to restrict their work in such a way that it can be distributed anywhere and modified freely by anyone within the terms of the licence provided by the original author. In Darl's view, copyright law is concerned with restricting works from being distributed without compensation, not with ensuring that authors are allowed to control distribution of their work as they see fit. He can't seem to wrap his head around the fact that many people have chosen to use their rights, as authors, under copyright law, to choose a set of restrictions that promotes copying and changing of their code, as long as anyone else can do the same. He only understands copyright in terms of sales and exclusivity.

Short version: in Darl's world, you can choose to restrict your works, but you can't choose to restrict your works into openness. Everything must be proprietary and closed, everyone must view each other as competitors to be fought instead of companions to collaborate with.

This seems to be the only logical way, outside of the obvious "pump 'n dump scheme" guess, to explain Darl's view of FOSS.

Guess SCO stock must have... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7636353)

dropped again recently.

RedHat against copyrights? (1)

darco (514434) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636354)

From the letter:

Red Hat has aggressively lobbied Congress to eliminate software patents and copyrights.

This statement smells like bullshit. They are intentionally muddling the difference between copyrights and patents; trying to make it look like RedHat is the one taking the indefensible position.

No one who has any relevance to this case opposes software copyrights. On the other hand, software patents are an entirely different issue and debate. Muddling the two together as "intellectual property" is misleading to the point of libel.

I shouldn't get worked up about this stuff, but for some reason it just really pisses me off.

Pathetic.

SCO (0)

the_real_rs (727832) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636357)

Sco is only greed. All they do is talk and show nothing to back it up. they want money and they need to goto hell sco is a bunch of bastards

Groklaw already has a nice analysis.. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7636361)

Right here... [groklaw.net]

Also there is some other SCO news on the front page.

Personally I can't get past how SCO reckons they can make the GPL invalid and then face all the angry kernel developers suing them for illegally distributing their copyrighted works....

Crack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7636363)

This guy is smoking some serious crack.

Copyright laws only say that someone can make copies if they have permission. How someone gets permission is left to the author of the work. The law does not require permission AND the exchange of money.

Can't we start a fund to send this guy to legal camp or something? Maybe buy him "law for dummies"?

SOMEBODY GIVE ME A BLOWJOB (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7636365)

now please

SCO: "viral" implies unconstitutional (1)

cmcguffin (156798) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636366)

So now it's clear: SCO intends to argue that the so-called "viral" nature of the GPL makes it 'unconstituational' (whatever that means).

By McBride's reckoning, the GPL deprives creators of their right to profit from their creations if they incorporate GPL'd code into their creation.

SCO have made reference to the GPL "virus" in previous (nonsensical) claims that the GPL would prevent, e.g., a brokerage firm from 'distributing' an application that uses GPL code internally within the company.

Utterly. Barking. Mad.

Hilarious stuff in here... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7636369)

"The 1976 Act had the desired effect. The U.S. economy responded rapidly, and within 10 years had regained global technology leadership."

Technology leadership? In 1986?! During the height of the Japanese bubble? This guy cracks me up! You're such a card, McBride.

--AC

die already (1)

LMCBoy (185365) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636370)

I read his letter, it was just a string of non-sequiturs, AFAICT. What exactly about the GPL is allegedly in violation of the constitution, or any other law for that matter? Seriously, I couldn't see anything in the letter about how the GPL violates anything. He just says "we hate the GPL because we want to write proprietary software and make money off of it". Well, good! Have at it, champ! Who's stopping you? Certainly not the GPL, the FSF, Redhat, or whatever else he's attacking this week.

Oh, and I like how he lumps patents and copyright together, so if you are against software patents, that means you are against Copyright. o_O WTF?

I know IHBT, but my God, I hate this guy. I thought Ransom Love was Clueless, but he's a genius compared to this waste of DNA.

Favorite quote (1)

glenebob (414078) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636371)

Despite the raw emotions, however, the issue is clear: do you support copyrights and ownership of intellectual property as envisioned by our elected officials in Congress and the European Union, or do you support "free" - as in free from ownership - intellectual property envisioned by the Free Software Foundation, Red Hat and others? There really is no middle ground. The future of the global economy hangs in the balance.
Gee I wonder if somebody has an over-inflated sense of importance?

APPEARS MENTAL. (-1, Troll)

caveman902 (711662) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636374)

APPEARS MENTAL.

Amusing quote (5, Insightful)

SendBot (29932) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636375)

In speaking of the DMCA
"...without protection, American companies would unfairly lose technology advantages to companies in other countries through piracy, as had happened in the 1970's.

This statement offers no explanation, whatsoever.

If the GPL is found to be unenforcable... (-1, Troll)

Steve 'Rim' Jobs (728708) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636378)

Than I suspect Darl and Co will get jail-time.

Someone should have warned them about this.

GPL=void.

Samba=no longer able to be distributed.

SCO sells Samba as part of Unixware.

Willful infringement for the purpose of commercial/finanical gain.

Felony charges. Minimum 3 years in prison.

Generally, I believe that the amount of prison time is proportional to the distribution. In SCO's case, it is going to be pretty damn big.

And, you know, depending on why the GPL is declared invalid (not that I think it will be, infact, I'm pretty damn sure it won't) one of two things may occur:
a)GPL won't actually be found invalid, instead, SCO's crazy ass-ed interpretation of the GPL will force them into some kind of bind where they will be inviolation of it, and loose the right to distribute under it
b)It will be found invalid in some tiny and specific way, and only the current revision of the GPL. GPL v4 will come out quickly, fix whatever error existed, and the opensource world will have a hell of a time moving everyting over to it. Or even better, it will only be found inapplicable to the linux kernel for some crazy reason, in which GPL v3.x for linux will be released, fixing the problem.

If either of these occur, or the GPL is just plain busted, SCO execs will go to jail and owe huge fines.

Not that it is much consolation--->It would really suck if the GPL was crushed. But it would feel good that the people who did it were screwed in the end anyways.

A minor mistake in reasoning (1)

h4ter (717700) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636383)

...the issue is clear: do you support copyrights and ownership of intellectual property as envisioned by our elected officials in Congress and the European Union, or do you support "free" - as in free from ownership - intellectual property envisioned by the Free Software Foundation, Red Hat and others? There really is no middle ground.

I think it is possible to be in the middle. I doesn't especially bother me that copyrights exist, and I'm happy that there are people who willingly give up that right for the free use of their ideas by others. Maybe some people hate all copyright, but surely not everyone involved in FSF and RH and "others".

Re:A minor mistake in reasoning (2, Insightful)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636490)

GPL licensing isn't really giving up copyright protection. You've always been able to do that, just by placing something in the public domain. The GPL is just a fairly unusual license that deals with copyright.

It's kind of funny -- Darl claiming that he's fighting for copyright and justice and that the global economy depends on this case...and yet, the GPL works within the bounds of copyright, and most users of it are pretty happy, and the GPL's popularity has increased exponentially for years. SCO's own licensing schemes have crumbled in upon themselves, have on numberous times made bogus legal claims and tried to bend the law (such as refusing to disclose what code violated IBM's license to IBM after a judge ordered disclosure).

As for protecting technological advancement -- Darl, Linux is far more technologically advanced than SCO Unix. Furthermore, it's used in far more products, and facilitates research in a huge number of labs every day.

Darl's claims are so ludicrous that they start to enter the "so ridiculous that it's hard to get people to believe that he's really that far from the truth" zone.

What? No mention of IBM? (1)

ukalum (682310) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636384)

Interesting that he never mentions the fact that IBM is not only defending the GPL, but suing SCO for not complying with it.

But I guess when you're trying to suggest that the GPL is supported by capitalism-hating commies, the fact that one of the largest corporations in the world also supports it doesn't really do anything to strengthen your argument.

Man oh man, I hope he ends up in jail.

Re:What? No mention of IBM? (1)

BigBuckHunter (722855) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636485)

Man oh man, I hope he ends up in jail. Club fed wouldn't be justice. I was hoping divorced and homeless.

Authors and Inventors (2, Interesting)

warui yatsu (591714) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636391)

SCO Misses the point. Darl quotes: Congress shall have Power ... [t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. No one at SCO is an author or an inventor. They fired those guys. A company built for the sole purpose of lawsuits should have no right to other peoples' writings or discoveries.

I am the great CornSCOlio! (-1, Offtopic)

Steve 'Rim' Jobs (728708) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636392)

I need IP for my bunghole!

He forgot (1)

TGrimace (585248) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636396)

The Childen. Won't somebody think of the children!

Software Patents aren't the same as Copyrights (1)

ComputatusMaximus (544615) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636399)

"Red Hat has aggressively lobbied Congress to eliminate software patents and copyrights. (see http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html )." How is Redhat aggressively lobbying to eliminate copyrights? McBride is constantly confusing terminology, either purposefully to obfuscate the truth, or out of utter ignorance. Likely the latter.

Re:Software Patents aren't the same as Copyrights (2, Informative)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636453)

If copyright didn't exist, the GPL could not exist -- everything would be public domain, and companies could release binary-only software.

I seriously doubt that RedHat has interest in blowing away copyright.

Most of this letter really is a straw man attack. It's not worth my time to punch holes in all of Darl's claims, but among other flaws:

(A) Darl claims that the GPL violates the Constitution and a number of other things. All "evidence", weak as it is, deals entirely with his claims about the motivations of several groups of people that happen to use the GPL. It has nothing to do with the GPL itself. This is a logical fallacy, on the order of saying "Bob owns a gun and Bob owns a big truck, so anyone owning a gun uses an excessive amount of gas".

(B) It's pretty clear that RH doesn't want to eliminate copyrights. Software patents are a significant disaster -- they are in a few company's corporate interests, but you will be very hard-pressed to find *any* engineer that supports them.

(C) McBride claimed that the GPL is invalid. Again. I'm wondering how he intends to argue that SCO didn't massively infringe copyrights of thousands of parties by then distributing Linux. Again. Same old, same old.

(D) McBride lies, and is happy to deliberately mislead people. We have seen this over and over and over in his claims and releases for almost a year now. It would be more of a surprise to find that he's being honest than that he's lying again.

Only one thing to say to Darl. (1)

Soko (17987) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636403)

If you read this:

"[t]he economic philosophy behind the [Copyright [C]lause ... is the conviction that encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance public welfare through the talents of authors and inventors." ... Accordingly, "copyright law celebrates the profit motive, recognizing that the incentive to profit from the exploitation of copyrights will redound to the public benefit by resulting in the proliferation of knowledge.... The profit motive is the engine that ensures the progress of science."... Rewarding authors for their creative labor and "promot [ing] ... Progress"

not once does it mention "monetary gain", only "profit".

I don't know about others, but I'm profiting very nicely by the (admittedly very small) contibutions I've made to GPLed software. It just doesn't always show itself as $ in my hands.

Think about it, Darl.

Soko

yawn... (1)

segment (695309) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636409)

December 4, 2003

An Open Letter:

Since last March The SCUM Group (SCUM) has been involved in bullyish tactics over the use of something we have no real idea of what it entails. What we assert is the widespread anal actions of others involving the portions of our copyrighted Joonix source code in Penix. These controversies are petty, and we have to stoop to a lower level and ruin a good thing for others.

SCUM assumes that the GPL, under which Penix is distributed, violates our feelings, and may be harming those hidden hands who are paying our legal beagles throughout the case. Constitutionally we have no basis, and we are hoping to obscure this entire situation in efforts to make millions and drive the entire Open Source community and the evil stealing Penis Throbalds out of existence.

The software license adopted by the GPL is called "copy left " by its authors. We are left handed and are appalled the constitution grants permission for others to make fun of us. This psychological warfare was not brought on by SCUM, but rather the thieves who stole the functions in our work.

We ask that the words main, print, printf, seek, scanf, stdio, and the {}, () characters be placed under martial law against the evil GPL renegades.

Sincerely,

Mike Hock
President & CEO
The SCUM Group, Inc.

So ... does that mean (1)

maxmg (555112) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636411)

that giving away things for free is unconstitutional and therefore illegal?

That's gonna be a very boring Christmas this year.

Don't they (5, Interesting)

mcc (14761) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636412)

Don't they actually have to put up in court tomorrow?

If I remember right, tomorrow is the oral discovery arguments for their case against IBM. Doesn't this mean that tomorrow they have to actually justify their unwillingness to clarify the nature of their case and answer to a judge for it?

Can't wait to see what that does to their stock.

Am I totally mistaking the nature of Discovery, but doesn't it mean that any evidence they haven't submitted by tomorrow, they can't use in the case? Meaning if they don't clarify their violations, rather than just giving the names of a bunch of documents (some of which contain nothing but some #includes and a "not implemented" comment), the "linux community" can then go around confidently stating that no such violations exist?

When's Redhat's Lanham Act case get to hit court to ask for injunctions?

Anyway, it probably wouldn't be too far-out to assume Darl's letter is some kind of diversionary tactic. Or that they won't try to do something even bigger and noisier tomorrow to draw attention away from the court.

Spout On, Darl (1)

toxic666 (529648) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636413)

The logic is so fundamentally flawed, it inspires awe. I'll assume (for the sake of argument), there is actually some shred of code in Linux that wasn't stolen from BSD or elsewhere.

OK, I'll agree the Constitution provides the basis for copyright law. If you want to copyright, patent or enforce trade secrets as a business model, Congress has made sure you can and the courts have upheld the laws.

But, the GPL is voluntary, and you are not forced to use its protections of free use. If Scaldera voluntarily released code under the GPL, its too late to go back unless they can come up with some twisted logic to justify their current actions. Reading Darl's arguments require a voluntary suspension of disbelief. "If our employees released code to Linux, it was without permission." "The GPL is unconstitutional and a sin against nature." Yada, yada, yada, I'll see you in 8 to 12 months.

Here is a brief GPL for Dummies analogy, Darl:

I tend to harp on about Ben Franklin and how he refused a patent for the Pennsylvania Stove; in doing so he had no choice but to allow others to patent the ideas he publicly released. If he had the option of GPL'ing the Pennsylvania Stove, other people could not have leached his ideas for their own patents. The GPL was written for those who want to make sure their code remains free.

This trash was written by Boies... (4, Interesting)

kuwan (443684) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636418)

After reading Darl's wonderful letter of ignorance and greed I'd have to conclude that it was largely written by David Boies or one of his minions. Though it's been mentioned that the author, as indicated from the doc's headers, was not McBride, or one of the lawyers, my guess is that it was just composed by the authors mentioned, but the actual text originated with a lawyer.

First of all it doesn't sound like the Darl we know and love. I've read enough of his BS and listened to him enough to know his style and this letter just doesn't have it. It tries to show some hint of intelligence which we all know McBride is devoid of. Second, the information about the Supreme Court rulings, the constitution, and the DMCA all read like a lawyer wrote them. It reads like it came from the world's most ignorant and incompetent lawyer, but it was definitely from a lawyer.

It's too bad for Boies that his name is being put on such utter trash. He did have a good reputation once, but it'll be ruined before this case is over.

It's a clever troll, by Darl's standards (4, Insightful)

DoctorFrog (556179) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636420)

Darl is trying to create a mental association between supporters of the GPL and scofflaws like warez kiddies.

It's a little clever, actually. The DMCA is opposed by many who also support the GPL, the common ground being that both groups tend to be deeply concerned by the proper application of intellectual property rights. The DMCA is also opposed by scofflaw copyright infringers, those being the people it was nominally designed to fight. Therefore, people who support the GPL are copyright infringers and scofflaws.

It's not a tactic that works against people who habitually apply logical analysis to what they read, but that isn't the majority of people, is it? (If it were, many a war would never have taken place.)

Crack Smoking and Prostitution (5, Funny)

Camel Pilot (78781) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636432)

From this article [infoworld.com] is one the best quotes from Linus yet:

I'm a big believer in copyrights," Torvalds wrote in an e-mail interview. "Of all the intellectual property (laws), copyright ... is the only one that is expressly designed so that individual people can (and do) get them without having scads of lawyers on their side."

"If Darl McBride was in charge, he'd probably make marriage unconstitutional too, since clearly it de-emphasizes the commercial nature of normal human interaction, and probably is a major impediment to the commercial growth of prostitution," he wrote.


Profit != Money (2, Interesting)

kfstark (50638) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636433)

McBride basis the entire argument under the assumption that 'profit' eq 'money'

I looked up several definitions of profit and all of them reference getting value, but none explicitly mention money. Increased stature in the community is a profit. Getting source code back because it is under the GPL is a profit.

The closest definition is:

Profit

\Pro"fit\ n. 1. Acquisition beyond expenditure; excess of value received for producing, keeping, or selling, over cost; hence, pecuniary gain in any transaction or occupation; emolument;

Getting back more source code than you produced is certainly acquisition exceeding expenditure.

The more apt one for GPL is:

profit

n. 2. Accession of good; valuable results; useful consequences; benefit; avail; gain;

--Keith

false claims in McBride's letter (1)

nudicle (652327) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636437)

This statement: Red Hat has aggressively lobbied Congress to eliminate software patents and copyrights. (see http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html ).

is dumb, wrong, and ignorant.

Red Hat and its lawyers *must* understand that the GPL gets all, as in 100%, of its power by copyright. Copyright gives you no authority to reproduce, distribute, or make derivative works of copyrighted code. The GPL relaxes those burdens. Without copyright it doesn't matter if there's a GPL statement on code you come across because the US isn't going to enforce rights in that code. It is copyright, for all its flaws and warts, that provides the fundamental power of the GPL.

Red Hat would be insane to argue against copyrightabilty of code because of this. And they don't

Second, and importantly, the GPL is therefore a *grant* of rights to the receiver of copyrighted code. Since in the U.S. code is subject to copyright which restricts, basically, everything, the GPL relieves some of those restrictions while imposing other requirements. the GPL is therefore generous, and abundantly so, in the face of U.S. copyright requirements. This is why the GPL will not be struck down and the very idea of its being so is fundamentally, frankly, dumb.

McBride is proving himself an idiot and his lawyers at Boies, Schiller, Flexner and embarrassing themselves ever more as each day passes.

SCO Reasoning (2, Insightful)

illuminatedwax (537131) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636441)

Left = opposite(Right) => copyleft = opposite(copyright)

The biggest assumption this letter makes is that the FSF forces this GPL requirement on everyone who writes software, completely ignoring the fact that the person who writes the code decides to use the GPL. Mr. McBride creates the scenario where the FSF controls the copyright law like a vicious dictator, forcing all software to the GPL (by possibly firebombing "proprietary clinics"), creating anarchy. I guess this makes sense then:
"There really is no middle ground. The future of the global economy hangs in the balance."

I feel like I should pop into my X-wing or something and blow up Stallman's house.

--Stephen

There was a time when an SCO thread was funny. (2, Insightful)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636443)

The jokes are so thin now, that they get a -2 redundant instead of +5 funny and McBride's stupidity seems to quanitify an order of magnitude each week.

Reading the letter made one thing perfectly clear though.
McBride like many executives these days seems only interested in the constitutionality of the copyright and patent rather than freedom of speech. ergo, the citizen should have no right to dictate how their creative works can be copied, modified and reused and that only the copyright office can do as such.

Such a perversion of the terms of the constitution I have never seen, well until 1998... but this line of thinking keeps getting more pronounced each and every year.

Maybe it's time we stopped pointing and laughing at SCO and looked at the bigger picture. McBride is but one of thousands of execs who wish to lay the smack down upon personal freedoms in order to kill competition and lockout the individual from the marketplace.

The recent move by the RIAA to secure anti-trust law exemption is based upon the very views expressed today by McBride: That the indivuals rights should be trampled by the government in the name of corporate self interest.

Just a jack handy moment...

Nothing we haven't seen before (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636444)

Nothing we haven't seen before.

So why was this even worth submitting?

Ya know, I think Darl got his business plan from a piece of spam last year.

This guy is dangerous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7636447)

From his letter it is very much clear to me that, this guy is determined to play dirty.

He mentions about the DMCA, which has nothing to do with the current issue as far as I know. My understanding is that DMCA prevents people from circumventing the digital copy protection, whereas SCO\ case is related with copying code from closed source to another software, which is distributed with another license. It is related with stealing code, not DMCA,

Although GPL is started with some political motivation for certain individuals, it was success because many other people who doesn't even agree with the GNU guys adopted, it. The reason is simple, cause GPL enables you to develop software in a way you can't otherwise. BSD is another license which you can use, but you may feel that you are working for other guys for free. So GPL is an option to people for their software. According to this guy, only leftists guys support it and that, it is un-American.

It is however quite interesting to see the clash between corporate interests and individual interests. WIth GPL you can develop your software without any fear that a corporation can steal your work. The license by its nature guarantees that. On the other hand, I don't see how GPL is a threat to a corporate. In fact, for companies like SCO, it is a great opportunity to increase your revenue, stock price etc... I personally don't like and prefer GPL because it doesn't allow you to develop software with open source and yet have some control over your software, but it is a choice there which I can use.

Amusing Circular logic (2, Funny)

alangmead (109702) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636450)

According to Darl, the GPL is designed to take profit incentive out of copyright ownership. Copyright is defined in the Constitution. In the case of Eldrid v. Ashcroft, the Supreme Court decided that the constitution's description of copyright existing to an advancement of arts and sciences includes the possibility of profit as a motivation. So, according to Darl, The GPL is unconstitutional.

I've read other odd things that he has said, but this seems to be a new one.

Finally get in trouble for their public statements (1)

Idou (572394) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636452)

If you head over to groklaw, you will see the latest filings. I am not even finished reading them yet and IBM has pulled several examples of public statements SCO has made about it knowing exactly what code infringes in order to convince the court that it should not allow SCO to delay anymore.

It felt really good to see all that crap they have been spouting out to finally be used against them. I am sure there is a lot more from where that came from.

Btw, I donated money to Groklaw today , and it felt very, very good.

Things may suck, but if you decide to give in, so do you.

Hey SCO! (1)

pitr256 (201315) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636456)

If you don't like GPL software so much and it's so unconstitutional, STOP FUCKING RELEASING IT!

Fscking morons!

Mod Darl down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7636473)

Redundant, Flamebait, Overrated, Troll and boring.

Copyright (1)

trouser (149900) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636480)

$ gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 3.2.2 20030217 (Yellow Dog Linux 3.0 3.2.2-2a)
Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
So gcc is copyright FSF. Distributed under the GPL. FSF do not cease to be the copyright holder by using the GPL, they simply define the terms of use and distribution of the software they provide.

Darl, you are a dangerous idiot.

Letter is accurate but beside the point (0)

real gumby (11516) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636482)

It's true the FSF doesn't like copyright, though they use judo on it with the copyleft. It's true that if linux were to contain code that belongs to someone who didn't want it licensed under the GPL, then that would be wrong.

But as far as I know Red Hat doesn't oppose copyrights and as far as I know the global economy doesn't hang in the balance! Likewise it's interesting that he summarized Eldred -- interesting but irrelevent.

I don't think this silly letter will persuade anyone on either side.

Copyright owner's permission (1)

EMR (13768) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636486)

So for a copyrighted work, I as the copyright owner have to give permission to you the consumer to make a copy.. With the GPL , I give permission for the comsumers to make copies.. They just don't have to ask for everycopy I explicitly give it to them under certain restrictions.. I'd say that perfectly follows and is compatible with the copyright laws. And if the user wishes to use the software I have written under a less restrictive use, they may contact me and we can negotiate a different licensing scheme assuming I get permission from all copy right holder of said software..

Nice list, Darl... (1)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 10 years ago | (#7636492)

his claim that the GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, patent laws, copyright laws, and the DMCA.

For good measure, let's throw in a few more which we all know he meant to add: the Sherman Anti-trust Act, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Magna Carta, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. Board of Education, Occam's Razor, Zeno's Paradox, Quantum Mechanics, Evolution, and (of course) 42.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...