ESR's response to SCO CEO
August 26, 2003 9:40 PM Subscribe
OSI Prez slaps SCO CEO with blogauntlet You know, when Eric S. Raymond speaks, people listen. But I think this particular rant, he wants just one person to listen: Darl McBride, CEO of SCO.
Heh, no -- when ESR talks, Slashdot fanboys listen and I have my doubts if they really count as people. Everyone else enthusiastically does not care.
posted by Electric Jesus at 11:38 PM on August 26, 2003
posted by Electric Jesus at 11:38 PM on August 26, 2003
I'm not really any more surprised by ESR's public statements on the SCO case than I am by Richard Stallman's. Even so, Electric Jesus, you've surely got to recognize that the potential ramifications of this go pretty far beyond the "Slashdot fanboy" crowd[*]. If nothing else, the cheap commodity Web hosting industry depends, in large part, on the availability of open-sourced Unix clones. Sure, there are shops running Windows NT/2000/XP/whatever, and I'm sure they serve plenty of people's needs just fine, but if all the Linux hosting companies go under, supply goes down, overhead goes up and all of a sudden Joe and Jane Weblog have to make up the difference out of their own pockets. But who really gives a shit--it's just the Internet, right?
Admittedly, this is an unlikely, worst-case scenario. But it is a possible one, and that makes it (in my humble opinion) worth caring about.
[*[ If if were, say, Six Apart getting threatened with a no doubt bogus but expensive lawsuit, would you be making comments about "MeFi fanboys"?
posted by arto at 12:51 AM on August 27, 2003
Admittedly, this is an unlikely, worst-case scenario. But it is a possible one, and that makes it (in my humble opinion) worth caring about.
[*[ If if were, say, Six Apart getting threatened with a no doubt bogus but expensive lawsuit, would you be making comments about "MeFi fanboys"?
posted by arto at 12:51 AM on August 27, 2003
ESR is a chode. A complete and total chode.
Many others have made much better points and refutations of SCO then he has. The fact that SCO sucks has nothing to do with how much ESR also sucks. Which is a lot.
posted by delmoi at 1:09 AM on August 27, 2003
Many others have made much better points and refutations of SCO then he has. The fact that SCO sucks has nothing to do with how much ESR also sucks. Which is a lot.
posted by delmoi at 1:09 AM on August 27, 2003
There are sucking sounds coming from every direction, that's for sure.
posted by mmoncur at 1:39 AM on August 27, 2003
posted by mmoncur at 1:39 AM on August 27, 2003
Yeah, if you're looking for something closer to enlightenment--and keep in mind, SCO hasn't exactly showed much in the way of proof to bolster their case, which actually makes it harder to rebut--Bruce Perens (legal counsel for the Free Software Foundation) makes some interesting points.
posted by arto at 3:40 AM on August 27, 2003
posted by arto at 3:40 AM on August 27, 2003
Web hosting industry depends, in large part, on the availability of open-sourced Unix clones.
That is why one can ignore this lawsuit and use FreeBSD.
The BSD's have settled with the UNIX IP holder. GNU/Linux have not settled.
posted by rough ashlar at 4:26 AM on August 27, 2003
That is why one can ignore this lawsuit and use FreeBSD.
The BSD's have settled with the UNIX IP holder. GNU/Linux have not settled.
posted by rough ashlar at 4:26 AM on August 27, 2003
rough ashlar: I think you're missing a key point. It seems that one of SCO's key claims is that the GPL is somehow invalid because it allows you to make multiple copies of software. This claim would also invalidate every single other free software license out there, including the BSD license.
posted by PenDevil at 4:53 AM on August 27, 2003
posted by PenDevil at 4:53 AM on August 27, 2003
PenDevil: friend of mine is an IP lawyer specializing in tech law - I asked him about that because I'm a BSD kiddie.. He laughed pretty hard before saying that was a stupid argument that would never make it in court.
posted by Ryvar at 5:39 AM on August 27, 2003
posted by Ryvar at 5:39 AM on August 27, 2003
am I the only one who has no idea what you're all talking about?
posted by evening at 6:39 AM on August 27, 2003
posted by evening at 6:39 AM on August 27, 2003
The webhosting community would survive without linux, by switching to bsd or even windows.
The real problem is the number of embedded linux applications out there that would suddenly have a huge problem on their hands. It's used in all sorts of electronics in invisible fashion, especially where the processor needs real-time capabilities, but there's not a budget for vxworks or qnx and switching real-time operating systems is an expensive proposition.
posted by mosch at 7:09 AM on August 27, 2003
The real problem is the number of embedded linux applications out there that would suddenly have a huge problem on their hands. It's used in all sorts of electronics in invisible fashion, especially where the processor needs real-time capabilities, but there's not a budget for vxworks or qnx and switching real-time operating systems is an expensive proposition.
posted by mosch at 7:09 AM on August 27, 2003
Everyone else enthusiastically does not care.
Speak for yourself...
Seriously though, any serious "IP infringement" lawsuit hinges on the "owner" protecting himself from further infringement. SCO, on the other hand, is actively preventing the mitigation of "damages" from the "infringement", opting instead to lock Linux users into using what they (fraudulently IMHO) claim to be tainted code, so they can get money.
If SCO is really interested in protecting their IP let them expose every instance of infringement. In detail. In no more than two months (by my reckoning) Linux can be wiped clean of the infecting code. But clearly protecting IP is NOT SCO's intent, nor has it ever been. In any torts lawsuit the plaintiff has a duty to mitigate damages to itself, whereas SCO is doing the opposite (assuming of course that there was an infringement at all in the first place). Scumbags.
posted by clevershark at 7:26 AM on August 27, 2003
Speak for yourself...
Seriously though, any serious "IP infringement" lawsuit hinges on the "owner" protecting himself from further infringement. SCO, on the other hand, is actively preventing the mitigation of "damages" from the "infringement", opting instead to lock Linux users into using what they (fraudulently IMHO) claim to be tainted code, so they can get money.
If SCO is really interested in protecting their IP let them expose every instance of infringement. In detail. In no more than two months (by my reckoning) Linux can be wiped clean of the infecting code. But clearly protecting IP is NOT SCO's intent, nor has it ever been. In any torts lawsuit the plaintiff has a duty to mitigate damages to itself, whereas SCO is doing the opposite (assuming of course that there was an infringement at all in the first place). Scumbags.
posted by clevershark at 7:26 AM on August 27, 2003
I'm glad Raymond just wants one person to listen. For once. Once again, in this article, Raymond says what everybody else has been saying
Raymond's popularity within the Open Source community is quite vexing. I've met the guy and seen him speak a couple of times and he's pretty much self-aggrandizing and uninteresting. His 'master' work, "The Cathedral And The Bazaar" was highly touted but based on negligible research and widely applicable assumptions.
Raymond's biggest problem is that he presumes himself to be an expert on any given issue, a fact he continually disproves. If you want to see a ruined project, just look for the ESR logo.
Really, how can anyone take this idiot seriously?
posted by Ogre Lawless at 10:24 AM on August 27, 2003
Raymond's popularity within the Open Source community is quite vexing. I've met the guy and seen him speak a couple of times and he's pretty much self-aggrandizing and uninteresting. His 'master' work, "The Cathedral And The Bazaar" was highly touted but based on negligible research and widely applicable assumptions.
Raymond's biggest problem is that he presumes himself to be an expert on any given issue, a fact he continually disproves. If you want to see a ruined project, just look for the ESR logo.
Really, how can anyone take this idiot seriously?
posted by Ogre Lawless at 10:24 AM on August 27, 2003
I also think that one mitigating bit of evidence in the eyes of the law might be that the Linux kernel maintainers are saying look, if there is tainted code, show us the code so that we can replace it. Nobody wants tainted code in Linux.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:25 AM on August 27, 2003
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:25 AM on August 27, 2003
Every movement needs someone to make a lot of noise while the rest of them do all the work.
Having more than one makes it even easier for the workers to go on unmolested.
posted by tommasz at 1:46 PM on August 27, 2003
Having more than one makes it even easier for the workers to go on unmolested.
posted by tommasz at 1:46 PM on August 27, 2003
To anyone still reading this here is ESR's detailed fisking of SCO's claims against IBM/Linux.
posted by PenDevil at 2:45 AM on August 28, 2003
posted by PenDevil at 2:45 AM on August 28, 2003
« Older Manscaping! Another word brought to you by Queer... | Faith in the Game Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by jeddings at 9:41 PM on August 26, 2003