Tony Lawrence wrote:
>
> I would have rather handled this with them privately rather than
> publically, but they (Ixorg) don't have anything on their website that
> indicates how I would contact them.
>
> Ixorg took http://aplawrence.com/SCOFAQ/FAQ_sco...owcontrol.html
> and gave it to SCO who published it in their latest newsletter and at
> http://www.sco.com/partners/news/0412/ixorg_corner.html. That is my
> material, and is not public domain.
>
> I don't mind that, but I DO mind that Ixorg has taken credit for
> something they didn't write.
>
> A public apology by both SCO and Ixorg will be sufficient to rectify
> this. The article at
> http://www.sco.com/partners/news/0412/ixorg_corner.html may be
> published but proper attribution must be made.
>
> I expect this to be done quickly.
>
> Generally speaking, most articles at my website are free to republish
> in any form, but proper attribution must ALWAYS be given. There are
> some articles cop[yright by other people, so do not assume that
> anything can be freely used. It always makes sense to ASK if you are
> unsure.
>
> --
> Tony Lawrence
> http://aplawrence

Hi Tony,

I have no idea what is going on, but I have forwarded this to the iXorg
Board of Directors for comment.

Mike

--
Michael Brown

In article <1102530148.145869.130530@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups .com>,
Tony Lawrence <pcunix@gmail.com> wrote:
>I would have rather handled this with them privately rather than
>publically, but they (Ixorg) don't have anything on their website that
>indicates how I would contact them.
>
>Ixorg took http://aplawrence.com/SCOFAQ/FAQ_sco...owcontrol.html
>and gave it to SCO who published it in their latest newsletter and at
>http://www.sco.com/partners/news/0412/ixorg_corner.html. That is my
>material, and is not public domain.

Well you might start with whoever did the registration - which
really has some bogus fields in it IMO.

inetdee@yahoo.com is the email list, but that looks bogus.
There are legitimate looking phone numbers listed however.
But given the state of some registrars I've seen addresses and
phone numbers that are wrong.

It is interesting that xiorg.com does not return any information
from a 'whois' but xiorg.org does. I got the info by starting
at www.kropf.net

Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

Bill Vermillion wrote:
>
> In article <1102530148.145869.130530@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups .com>,
> Tony Lawrence <pcunix@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I would have rather handled this with them privately rather than
> >publically, but they (Ixorg) don't have anything on their website that
> >indicates how I would contact them.
> >
> >Ixorg took http://aplawrence.com/SCOFAQ/FAQ_sco...owcontrol.html
> >and gave it to SCO who published it in their latest newsletter and at
> >http://www.sco.com/partners/news/0412/ixorg_corner.html. That is my
> >material, and is not public domain.
>
> Well you might start with whoever did the registration - which
> really has some bogus fields in it IMO.
>
> inetdee@yahoo.com is the email list, but that looks bogus.
> There are legitimate looking phone numbers listed however.
> But given the state of some registrars I've seen addresses and
> phone numbers that are wrong.
>
> It is interesting that xiorg.com does not return any information
> from a 'whois' but xiorg.org does. I got the info by starting
> at www.kropf.net
>
> Bill
> --
> Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

There are two sites, ixorg.org and ixorg.com. Both are hosted by Brett,
http://kropf.com, who is an iXorg member. The .org site is for members,
the .com site is for the public. I am not really sure what xiorg.org is,
unless its a typo.

In the iXorg.org site under the eXpress yourself menu there is a link to
email the President, currently Bob Ungaretti from Raven Technologies.
I have already forwarded Tony's post to Bob, Brett and SCO.

Mike

--
Michael Brown

On 8 Dec 2004 14:18:02 -0800, "Tony Lawrence" <pcunix@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>
>> WIRED woud be a good place to mention this. As sue-happy as SCO is,
>> they should be more careful. iXorg should consider how this looks
>for
>> their [lack of] credibility.
>
>
>It wouldn't be fair to blame SCO - unless they just ignore me.
>
>As to Wired or, gawd forbid, Slashdot or Groklaw - please DON'T.

I certainly wouldn't do anything on your behalf.

>I don't need 5 zillion clickers taking bandwidth from me for no useful
>reason. We have a nice little community there and don't need the
>publicity.

Heh.
--
gburnore@databasix dot com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
DataBasix | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ 3 4 1 4 2 ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9 ÝÛ³
Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division | Official Proof of Purchase
================================================== =========================
Want one? GET one! http://signup.databasix.com
================================================== =========================

Tony Lawrence wrote:

> I don't think it requires a lawyer. It IS copyright violation, but
I'm
> not angry about it being published - I am angry about the
attribution.
> I want that corrected

You're being incredibly naive. You'll get nowhere without at least a
credible threat of legal action.

Retlak

>> In article <1102530148.145869.130530@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups .com>,
>> Tony Lawrence <pcunix@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I would have rather handled this with them privately rather than
>>> publically,

Tony, I've not yet been able to contact the iXorg member who submitted
that article as he is unreachable while out of town until late
Thursday, but I have a few questions. And from what I'm seeing so far,
it might have avoided a lot of 'egg on face' if you HAD handled this
privately.

And Tony, did you consider that the article submitter might be one of
your own advertisers?



>>> but they (Ixorg) don't have anything on their website that
>>> indicates how I would contact them.

Incorrect! There are at least FIVE links to contact iXorg from
http://iXorg.org/

"eXpress yourself" has 3 options:
"e-mail president",
"e-mail membership",
"e-mail webmaster",
"contact iXorg" is addressed to the President,
"Email us" is addressed to the webmaster.

And the http://iXorg.com/ site "for: Resellers" refers the viewer to
http://iXorg.org/.



>>> Ixorg took
http://aplawrence.com/SCOFAQ/FAQ_sco...owcontrol.html
>>> and gave it to SCO who published it in their latest newsletter
>>> and at http://www.sco.com/partners/news/0412/ixorg_corner.html.
>>> That is my material, and is not public domain.

I find at least two other sources on the Internet that contain this
document which appears to be a long standing portion of part 7 of 7 of
the comp.unix.sco Technical FAQ:

http://www.iconv.com/usenet/new/usen..._FAQ_(7_7).htm
http://www.uni-giessen.de/faq/archiv.../msg00000.html

And both of which contain:

"These FAQS were developed and maintained for years by
steved@ussinc.com (Stephen M. Dunn)."

Tony, did YOU submit the ORIGINAL article to the FAQ?

Or did Steven M. Dunn submit it himself?

Or maybe the iXorg member who submitted it for the SCO Partner News
wrote it?

Tony, even your own page states:

"This article is from a FAQ concerning SCO operating systems."



> Bill Vermillion subsequently wrote:
>>
>> Well you might start with whoever did the registration

Good (unnecessary) idea!


>> - which really has some bogus fields in it IMO.

Bill, please change your opinion.



>> inetdee@yahoo.com is the email list, but that looks bogus.

You might try emailing Deepak before calling it bogus. If it IS bogus,
it certainly wasn't when I registered it. And regardless,
Brett@Kropf.com is CERTAINLY NOT bogus! Nor is Bob's address...



>> There are legitimate looking phone numbers listed however.

And they actually ARE legitimate. Too bad those criticizing didn't use
them! (Thankfully, uninvolved Larry Rosenman DID.)



>> But given the state of some registrars I've seen addresses and
>> phone numbers that are wrong.

These hasty poor judgments really bother me!
(Reminds me of another bogus slam I received from the Linux community
regarding: http://iXorg.org/news/news2003.html#030804a )

Is this what the SCO community is coming to?
(Attacking one another on hasty glances? BEFORE we get the facts!?)



>> It is interesting that xiorg.com does not return any information
>> from a 'whois' but xiorg.org does.

I suggest you try iXorg.com, OR iXorg.org, OR iXorg.net.

(Imagine that, a THIRD domain! With MORE identical info. :-)



>> I got the info by starting at www.kropf.net

Thanks for the 'plug'.
(And you're welcome to get a lot MORE factual info at http://Kropf.net/
;-)

And you'll even find a link to Tony's site at:
http://Kropf.net/#Systems
And another at http://Kropf.com/frames/main/sco.html IMAGINE!!!

(Plagiarizing Tony's excellence is certainly nothing I'd endorse!)



(Thankfully,) Mike Brown wrote:
> There are two sites, ixorg.org and ixorg.com. Both are hosted by
> Brett, http://kropf.com, who is an iXorg member. The .org site is
> for members, the .com site is for the public.

(As designated before I was involved with them.)



> I am not really sure what xiorg.org is, unless its a typo.
>
> In the iXorg.org site under the eXpress yourself menu there is a
> link to email the President, currently Bob Ungaretti from Raven
> Technologies. I have already forwarded Tony's post to Bob, Brett
> and SCO.

(SCO simply posted what iXorg sent them.)



> Mike

THANK YOU Mike for attempting to bring some sanity to this chaos.

NOW, maybe we can all calm down while iXorg makes contact with the
submitter of our article to get the facts.

Please rest assured that if an error was made, a correction will be
made and a sincere apology will be clearly stated.

On 9 Dec 2004 01:25:59 -0800, "Brett Kropf" <Brett@Kropf.com> wrote:

>Tony, did you consider that the article submitter might be one of
>your own advertisers?

- and -

>I find at least two other sources on the Internet that contain this
>document which appears to be a long standing portion of part 7 of 7 of
>the comp.unix.sco Technical FAQ:

So, (1) it was submitted by someone else (but you didn't check out the
provenance until now), and (2) it was as good as public domain anyway,
having been circulated for years.

Any chance you might see a bit of irony there at all??

Brett Kropf wrote:

>
> And Tony, did you consider that the article submitter might be one of
> your own advertisers?

And that should make a difference?


> >>> Ixorg took
> http://aplawrence.com/SCOFAQ/FAQ_sco...owcontrol.html
> >>> and gave it to SCO who published it in their latest newsletter
> >>> and at http://www.sco.com/partners/news/0412/ixorg_corner.html.
> >>> That is my material, and is not public domain.
>
> I find at least two other sources on the Internet that contain this
> document which appears to be a long standing portion of part 7 of 7
of
> the comp.unix.sco Technical FAQ:

It's part of the FAQ, yes. A part I added. It came from
http://aplawrence.com/Unixart/printing.html originally.

>
>
http://www.iconv.com/usenet/new/usen..._FAQ_(7_7).htm
> http://www.uni-giessen.de/faq/archiv.../msg00000.html
>
> And both of which contain:
>
> "These FAQS were developed and maintained for years by
> steved@ussinc.com (Stephen M. Dunn)."
>
> Tony, did YOU submit the ORIGINAL article to the FAQ?

Yes.

>
> Or did Steven M. Dunn submit it himself?

No. I took over the FAQ some years ago and have completely redone it.
That fact is also noted in the introductory material.

Look, I don't mind that people take this, publish it, even SELL it.
But don't pretend that it's yours, which is what happened here. I
don't mean YOU, Brett, and I don't mean IXorg: I mean the lazy bastard
who gave it to you.

The word FAQ does not mean "public domain". If the submitter had said
"this is a document from a SCO FAQ that I think is in the public
domain", he would have been wrong, but at least it wouldn't look like
he wrote it himself.

No matter how you look at this, it is dishonest. My material was used
incorrectly and dishonestly. I hope you aren't trying to wriggle away
from that with this nonsense, cuz that'll just piss me off.

>
> Or maybe the iXorg member who submitted it for the SCO Partner News
> wrote it?
>
> Tony, even your own page states:
>
> "This article is from a FAQ concerning SCO operating systems."

Yes. So? That doesn't mean IXorg can take something from it and claim
it as their own.



This is the point: he took something right off my site, didn't change
a single word, but claimed it was from IXorg. That's wrong.


Again: MOST of what is on my site can be freely used. Just don't go
calling it yours when it isn't.


>
>
> > Bill Vermillion subsequently wrote:
> >>
> >> Well you might start with whoever did the registration
>
> Good (unnecessary) idea!

WRT to that: I originally joined IXorg when it was free. When you
started asking for $295.00 a year, I declined. IXorg has insufficient
value for me to pay that. I'm not saying it might not be worth that
to someone else, just not to me. Leaving my name there as a member is
dishonest because it implies endorsement.

How many other "members" are listed who didn't want to pay $295.00 a
year?




--
Tony Lawrence

Brett Kropf wrote:
..
>
> NOW, maybe we can all calm down while iXorg makes contact with the
> submitter of our article to get the facts.
>
> Please rest assured that if an error was made, a correction will be
> made and a sincere apology will be clearly stated.

You've already been given the facts. All the miscreant can offer is an
excuse.



--
Tony Lawrence

Tony Lawrence wrote:
> Brett Kropf wrote:

> >
> > And both of which contain:
> >
> > "These FAQS were developed and maintained for years by
> > steved@ussinc.com (Stephen M. Dunn)."

The FAQ actually says:

comp.unix.sco Meta FAQ
Author: Tony Lawrence <tonyl@aplawrence.com> (originally by Stephen
Dunn)
URL: http://aplawrence.com/SCOFAQ/index.html


and later on says:

These FAQS were developed and maintained for years by
steved@ussinc.com (Stephen M. Dunn). Steve no longer has the time to
maintain them, and has asked me to take them over. Please remember the
debt all of us owe to Steve for his efforts- I myself spent many hours
learning from these very documents, and I'm sure many of us can say
similar things.


> >
> > Tony, did YOU submit the ORIGINAL article to the FAQ?

Yes (again).

I feel like somebody is trying to squirm out of this. OK, fine: I'm
not going to sue you, so don't panic. If you want to pretend to
yourself that its fine to just lift something because you see it sleeps
around, fine.

If the "IXorg" article had given credit to Steve Dunn I would have
corrected the error, but I wouldn't have been pissed off. I would have
seen that as an honest mistake because Steve never originally gave much
indication of who submitted what. Maybe he didn't need to - maybe he
wrote all the original stuff himself. When I took it over, I started
noting who had submitted articles, but I didn't specially mark Steve's
stuff because I didn't know where it was from and because I had to
change a lot of it anyway due to being out of date. I didn't put
specific copyright notices on FAQ material (legally not necessary to do
that anyway) because I didn't want confusion with the original material
that Steve handed over and the material I added - I didn't want someone
thinking I was claiming copyright on Steve's submissions.

That was, of course, an imperfect solution. I really didn't want to
make the whole thing a confusing mess, but it is, so, as I said, I
really wouldn't blame anyone if they took something I added and thought
it had come from Steve. At least they wouldn't be calling it theirs.

Again, with very few exceptions, most of the material on my site can be
freely used with attribution. I use a Creative Commons Copyright for
most articles. The FAQ doesn't specifically say that it is copyrighted
in that manner, but it doesn't say it isn't either - again, I don't
mind my parts being treated that way and I'm sure Steve feels the same
way.

Now: other people have taken this material and published as a whole.
That's fine. If your member found the FAQ at xyz.com, and said "This
aricle was from a FAQ I found at xyz.com", I would have checked
xyz.com, seen that they had included attribution back to the original
sources, and I would have no gripe with him. In my mind, he would have
reasonably attributed the material. I would have preferred that he link
back directly to me, but it would have been understandable that he did
not.

And again, I wouldn't have been terribly annoyed if he had said "I
think this is public domain". I would have wondered about his
intelligence, but not his honesty.

But you don't go taking stuff and calling it your own. That's
dishonest. Mark Twains writings will be passing out of copyright soon,
but that doesn't mean that Bill Crosby should republish "Tom Sawyer by
Bill Crosby", does it?

--
Tony Lawrence