tony@aplawrence.com wrote in news:bifdgj$1d6$1@pcls4.std.com:

> fLameDogg <flamedogg@operamail.com> wrote:

>>"'em" being what? The larger Linux community? Any passing penguin you
>>happen to see? Or just the number of Linux-using numbnuts which have
>>attracted your disdain?
>
> OK, OK. I should have said "the Linux community on Slashdot", and
> even that would include folks who don't deserve it.

I guess it was always evident you didn't mean to cast aspersion on every
single Linux user, unless you have some self-image issues <g>

>>I know a few decent people who use Linux, and I'm inclined to believe
>>there are more. I can't deny, though, the quasi-religious fervor that
>>seems to surround Linux. Sometimes it's kind of exciting, and sometimes
>>a bit disturbing, but mostly it's just interesting to contemplate.
>
> Well, I find it disturbing whether it's directed to gods, diet fads,
> or operating systems. Nothing much to be done about that, though:
> people are what they are.

Nod.
--
fD

tony@aplawrence.com wrote:
> My apologies to the "broader Linux community" that has been
> spouting nastygrams about SCO long before there was any
> indication that the barbs were deserved.

What?

Let me get this straight. You are pissed at the Linux people who supported
their community by being in opposition to SCO because they were doing it
without justification?

Let me set you straight Anthony, I knew SCO was full of shit the minute they
refused to identify the offending code in the Linux kernel - I knew it that
very second!

You see, I know something about IP law and lawsuits. The first requirement
of a plaintiff is to mitigate damages by identifying the code that
infringes their rights in order to give the plaintiff full opporunity to
correct the problem. The next step if the plaintiff refuses to stop is to
file a motion for a temporary interlocutory injunction from continued
infringement.

In order for a motion for an temporary interlocutory injunction to succeed,
plaintiff must have a prima facia case - clear ownership of the copyright,
clear case of plaintiff using the copyright material in an unauthorized
manner and proof of damages beyond normal during litigation.

A motion can be filed and heard in less than 30 days and a decision can
generally be heard from the bench in less than a week.

WHAT ARE THEY WAITING FOR?

I'll tell you what:

(1) The SCO Group does not have clear ownership of the code in System V
as a result of the BSD settlement.

(2) The SCO Group has failed to show a single line of encumbered code
therefore there is no clear case of unauthorised use.

(3) The SCO Group can't show proof of damages because SCO has been a loser
for at least 5 years and has been passed around like a turd from one owner
to another for at least that long - nobody has made money owning SCO except
perhaps the channel.

So, there was no debate in my mind that The SCO Group was Full Of Shit!

> I will say now that it sure looks like SCO DOES deserve the
> censure, but none of them knew that until just recently.

Total Bullshit!

You obviously do not have a clue how the Linux kernel is built and
maintained! It is a firefight from the get-go to get any code included and
it is subject to peer review and pehaps a lot of rewriting.

There are lots of instances of code being rejected because of uncertain
copyright pedigree and some code was actually removed because of
conflicting license terms between the GPL and owner of donated code.

You apparently didn't know this but were willing to piss and moan about the
great unwashed Linux community.

The funny thing is, no mention of this humiliating development has made it
to your SCO/Linux web page. What's up with that?

So Anthony, allow me to point to your behavior and accuse you of being just
another ignorant unwashed SCO fan boy bigot whose ship is sinking. I am
sorry SCO crapped all over your favorite Unix but it has been a sinking
ship for years now.

Linux is on the fast track to taking over your marketshare with a superior
product and a less expensive business model. While it is true many
applications still exist for the SCO brands of Unix, there are still
deployers of DOS applications (our local multiplex theatre runs it's ticket
video kiosks on DOS 6), that is the past.

Perhaps it is time to pull your head out of your ass and deal with it.

One last thought, Slashdot is not the flagship of the Linux community. It is
an open forum where anyone with anything to say has a venue. Now it is true
some of the comments may not come up to your high standards of informed
opinion but as your behavior has illustrated, you are not exactly that well
informed either.

You are in fact attacking others for being as uninformed and pig-ignorant as
you yourself are.

How about that?

Best regards,

Brian
Linux Mystic
open sorcerer

Brian <brian@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>tony@aplawrence.com wrote:
>> My apologies to the "broader Linux community" that has been
>> spouting nastygrams about SCO long before there was any
>> indication that the barbs were deserved.

>What?

>Let me get this straight. You are pissed at the Linux people who supported
>their community by being in opposition to SCO because they were doing it
>without justification?

Yes.

>Let me set you straight Anthony, I knew SCO was full of shit the minute they
>refused to identify the offending code in the Linux kernel - I knew it that
>very second!

No. You may have suspected it, but you couldn't know.

... interesting legal stuff deleted ..

>I'll tell you what:

>(1) The SCO Group does not have clear ownership of the code in System V
>as a result of the BSD settlement.

>(2) The SCO Group has failed to show a single line of encumbered code
>therefore there is no clear case of unauthorised use.

>(3) The SCO Group can't show proof of damages because SCO has been a loser
>for at least 5 years and has been passed around like a turd from one owner
>to another for at least that long - nobody has made money owning SCO except
>perhaps the channel.

>So, there was no debate in my mind that The SCO Group was Full Of Shit!

>> I will say now that it sure looks like SCO DOES deserve the
>> censure, but none of them knew that until just recently.

>Total Bullshit!

>You obviously do not have a clue how the Linux kernel is built and
>maintained! It is a firefight from the get-go to get any code included and
>it is subject to peer review and pehaps a lot of rewriting.

Excuse me? How the Linux kernel is built has no relationship to
anything here.

>The funny thing is, no mention of this humiliating development has made it
>to your SCO/Linux web page. What's up with that?

Umm,, wrong, there are several mentions of it.

http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B399.html Aug 21
http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B395.html Aug 19


>So Anthony, allow me to point to your behavior and accuse you of being just
>another ignorant unwashed SCO fan boy bigot whose ship is sinking. I am
>sorry SCO crapped all over your favorite Unix but it has been a sinking
>ship for years now.

Not my favorite Unix :-). Never was. Trust me, I've been watching this
"ship" drive itself over rocks for years, and have been moving on
as fast as I can.

>Linux is on the fast track to taking over your marketshare with a superior
>product and a less expensive business model. While it is true many

Most of my business nowadays is !~ /SCO/i;

Any SCO systems that CAN move to Linux, I've moved. I'm not as
dumb as I look.

--
tony@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 01:06:04 +0000, ton wrote:

> I will say now that it sure looks like SCO DOES deserve the censure, but
> none of them knew that until just recently. Yet many howled for
> boycotts etc. in spite of not having any idea whether or not the claims
> were legit.

Initially, the reason we were angry was that we were frustrated. SCO had
claimed Linux code was infringing. We wanted it out, but SCO wouldn't
tell us what it was. The overriding feeling was complete frustration.

Then SCO said they wanted the code to stay in. The only logical reason
for this was that they wanted to collect money from Linux users for the
use of Linux as a whole. This later turned out to be the case. But the
users, and especially the contributors, had done so with the belief that
Linux would remain free, and now SCO was attempting to commandeer Linux.

We never wanted to steal code. When SCO claimed we had, we wanted the
code removed and the shady contributor crucified, so Linux could remain
free. But it became increasingly evident that SCO was bent on taking
Linux for itself. They weren't merely protecting their IP, they were
trying to use it to steal all of Linux.

Besides that, to an increasing extent, SCO was leading a PR campaign
against Linux in particular and open source software in general, and
making wild claims about the GPL. The initial filings had jabs against
Linux, like the whole "bike" thing. More recently, SCO has maligned
distributors who don't offer indemnification, despite the fact that it
wouldn't be necessary if not for SCO. You can't deny that we were
attacked.

My point is that regardless of the legitimacy of SCO's claims, they
deserved our scorn from day one. If SCO found some of their code in
Linux, they should have written linux-kernel@vger.org, and it would have
been gone within the week. If SCO wanted payback, they should sue whoever
contributed the code. If IBM contributed the code, they should sue IBM.
That much was justified. But not disclosing the code was not justified.
Not allowing their code to be separated from Linux was not justified.
Claiming that the whole of Linux is an unauthorized derivative was not
justified. Threatening users with legal action unless they buy a license
was not justified. Launching a massive dishonest smear campaign was not
justified. Valid claims or not, SCO is and was way out of line.

I frankly have a bit of difficulty understanding how you don't see this,
but hopefully that sheds a bit of light on the Linux community's feelings.

--
Nucleon, <tcfelker@mtco.com>
<http://vlevel.sourceforge.net> - Stop fiddling with the volume knob.

War not make one great.
-- Yoda

> >You obviously do not have a clue how the Linux kernel is built and
> >maintained! It is a firefight from the get-go to get any code included and
> >it is subject to peer review and pehaps a lot of rewriting.
>
> Excuse me? How the Linux kernel is built has no relationship to
> anything here.

Sure it does. The more stringent the examination of submitted code,
the less likely that encumbered code will be added. It appears as
though the Linux kernel fellas run a pretty tight ship, explicitly
looking for stuff like this.

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 tony@aplawrence.com wrote:

> Larry <lscott@dlptech.com> wrote:
> >> >You obviously do not have a clue how the Linux kernel is built and
> >> >maintained! It is a firefight from the get-go to get any code included and
> >> >it is subject to peer review and pehaps a lot of rewriting.
> >>
> >> Excuse me? How the Linux kernel is built has no relationship to
> >> anything here.
>
> >Sure it does. The more stringent the examination of submitted code,
> >the less likely that encumbered code will be added. It appears as
> >though the Linux kernel fellas run a pretty tight ship, explicitly
> >looking for stuff like this.
>
> Does it? Some folks seem to think otherwise:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3191281.stm

Tony,

Posting this article is another example of your pro-SCO bias. The article
has so many glaring faults in it, it cannot be taken as serious, informed
commentary. If you thisnk you are netral and informed on the topic,
I cannot imagine you would not recognize the faults in the article.

Most egregious is the it implicit belief of SCO's claim that some of SCO's
code has been illegally included in the Linux kernel. Despite the
debunking of SCO's "proof" and despite the unbelieveable claims from SCO
about the number of "their" code in the kernel, the author harps on about
problems with the Kernel development model.

It seems to think that Linux and free software suppporters are outraged at
SCO defending SCO's copyright. Public statements from Linus and others
make it clear that they do not condone copyright violations and
would immediately remove any code that can be shown to be in
violation of copyrights.

Another glaring problem is that it seems to completely ignore the
possiblity of code being copied the other way in violation of copyrights.
What process does SCO have to prevent copyright violations? Given the
suggestion that the code they showed at the Forum was BSD copde that had
been copied illegally (by removing the BSD copyright statements), perhaps
SCO's process needs investigating.

Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 tony@aplawrence.com wrote:

>> Larry <lscott@dlptech.com> wrote:
>> >> >You obviously do not have a clue how the Linux kernel is built and
>> >> >maintained! It is a firefight from the get-go to get any code included and
>> >> >it is subject to peer review and pehaps a lot of rewriting.
>> >>
>> >> Excuse me? How the Linux kernel is built has no relationship to
>> >> anything here.
>>
>> >Sure it does. The more stringent the examination of submitted code,
>> >the less likely that encumbered code will be added. It appears as
>> >though the Linux kernel fellas run a pretty tight ship, explicitly
>> >looking for stuff like this.
>>
>> Does it? Some folks seem to think otherwise:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3191281.stm

>Tony,

>Posting this article is another example of your pro-SCO bias. The article
>has so many glaring faults in it, it cannot be taken as serious, informed
>commentary. If you thisnk you are netral and informed on the topic,
>I cannot imagine you would not recognize the faults in the article.

Gawd, you are such an idiot: I AM NOT PRO SCO. Nor is that
article.

If you and the other head-in-the sand fools would pay attention

to the good advice that is in that article.. but never mind.

>Most egregious is the it implicit belief of SCO's claim that some of SCO's
>code has been illegally included in the Linux kernel. Despite the
>debunking of SCO's "proof" and despite the unbelieveable claims from SCO
>about the number of "their" code in the kernel, the author harps on about
>problems with the Kernel development model.

The problems are real, and I'm not sure there is any real solution.
I had the same problem on my site: somebody submitted an article,
I published it and only much later someone else pointed out that
large sections of it were taken verbatim from an O'Reilly
book. Well, heck, I can't read everything, can I? Nor can
Linux kernel folk. What makes it even harder for them is that
the code in question might be proprieatary and only someone
who worked there COULD even know it was copied.

This *is* a problem, and it's incredibly dumb to insist that it
is not.

My feeling is that we have erred in allowing copyrights and patents
on the expression of ideas, the "look and feel", to start with, but
again that's outside of this discussion also.


>It seems to think that Linux and free software suppporters are outraged at
>SCO defending SCO's copyright. Public statements from Linus and others
>make it clear that they do not condone copyright violations and
>would immediately remove any code that can be shown to be in
>violation of copyrights.

Sure. IF THEY KNEW. I do think it's beyond incredible that
SCO is playing hide and seek with this supposedly stolen code,
and these games of "we're showing the code" "oh THAT wasn't the
code" are disgusting, but that doesn't change the fact that this
is a problem. This is a real problem whether or not SCO has
anything in their pocket or not.


>Another glaring problem is that it seems to completely ignore the
>possiblity of code being copied the other way in violation of copyrights.
>What process does SCO have to prevent copyright violations? Given the
>suggestion that the code they showed at the Forum was BSD copde that had
>been copied illegally (by removing the BSD copyright statements), perhaps
>SCO's process needs investigating.

They may be very guilty there, and that's pretty interesting too,
but it doesn't negate the problem Linux has with this issue.


--
tony@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
"/home/dacha/apl/.article.14822452" 89 lines, 4342 characters

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 21:16:30 +0000, ton wrote:

> Does it? Some folks seem to think otherwise:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3191281.stm

I'm repeating here the comment I submitted about that article (no reply
yet), which represents my biggest problem with it:


I believe the argument that "There is no formal mechanism for ensuring
that the developers are not submitting code which does not belong to
them," an argument originated by Microsoft, reiterated by SCO, and
repeated by you, sets a double standard for the open source community.
Closed source software companies have no process either, because such a
process would be impossible. It is in fact much more likely that closed
source software companies use code they don't own, because in a company,
there isn't even "unstructured peer review," and therefore there is little
chance of being caught.

Consider the claim, "I wrote this code." If you don't trust the person
who says it, it's impossible to prove he did, without access to all other
code ever written. Since nobody has such access, the only solution is to
only accept code from people whom you trust, and who are liable for any
fraudulent copyright claims they make. This is exactly what the open
source community does.

If you must complain about the lack of a verification process, you should
compare it to the similar lack in closed source, and moreover, you should
enlighten us about what form such a process should take.


--
Nucleon, <tcfelker@mtco.com>
<http://vlevel.sourceforge.net> - Stop fiddling with the volume knob.

The Congress shall have Power... TO 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;

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 tony@aplawrence.com wrote:

> Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:
> >On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 tony@aplawrence.com wrote:
>
>
> >Posting this article is another example of your pro-SCO bias. The article
> >has so many glaring faults in it, it cannot be taken as serious, informed
> >commentary. If you thisnk you are netral and informed on the topic,
> >I cannot imagine you would not recognize the faults in the article.
>
> Gawd, you are such an idiot: I AM NOT PRO SCO. Nor is that
> article.

I'm afraid that you are so biased, you can't even see your own bias!
Calling me an idiot does not change anything. Did anyone ever tell you
that you can make an argument without resorting to insults?

> If you and the other head-in-the sand fools would pay attention
>
> to the good advice that is in that article.. but never mind.

What makes you think there is no process to getting code included in the
Linux kernel or a GNU utility? There are processes and those processes
provide some level of protection against copyright violations. I say
"some" because it is clearly impossible to be 100% sure.
>
> The problems are real,
Are they? So far, based on published evidence, there are no copyright
violations in the Linux kernel. So far, the only known copyright
violations are in the closed source software.

> I had the same problem on my site: somebody submitted an article,
> I published it and only much later someone else pointed out that
> large sections of it were taken verbatim from an O'Reilly
> book. Well, heck, I can't read everything, can I? Nor can
> Linux kernel folk. What makes it even harder for them is that
> the code in question might be proprieatary and only someone
> who worked there COULD even know it was copied.
>
> This *is* a problem, and it's incredibly dumb to insist that it
> is not.

So should open source project be held to a higher standard than closed
source projects? If so, why?

>
> My feeling is that we have erred in allowing copyrights and patents
> on the expression of ideas, the "look and feel",

So you feel that companies should be able to take any source code and
include it in their software, despite what the authors want?

>
> Sure. IF THEY KNEW. I do think it's beyond incredible that
> SCO is playing hide and seek with this supposedly stolen code,
> and these games of "we're showing the code" "oh THAT wasn't the
> code" are disgusting, but that doesn't change the fact that this
> is a problem. This is a real problem whether or not SCO has
> anything in their pocket or not.

All it shows is that SCO's management has NO credibility. The question is,
when you hear a stream of lies from someone, when do you stop believing
ANYTHING that they have to say?

Tell me, have YOU stopped believing SCO's management?

Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:
>On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 tony@aplawrence.com wrote:

>> Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:
>> >On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 tony@aplawrence.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Posting this article is another example of your pro-SCO bias. The article
>> >has so many glaring faults in it, it cannot be taken as serious, informed
>> >commentary. If you thisnk you are netral and informed on the topic,
>> >I cannot imagine you would not recognize the faults in the article.
>>
>> Gawd, you are such an idiot: I AM NOT PRO SCO. Nor is that
>> article.

>I'm afraid that you are so biased, you can't even see your own bias!
>Calling me an idiot does not change anything. Did anyone ever tell you
>that you can make an argument without resorting to insults?

When you consistently say stupid things, I am impelled to note the
reason for your blatherings. You keep insisting that I am a SCO
apologist when in fact all evidence says otherwise. That makes you
a liar, stuoid, or both.


>> If you and the other head-in-the sand fools would pay attention
>>
>> to the good advice that is in that article.. but never mind.

>What makes you think there is no process to getting code included in the
>Linux kernel or a GNU utility? There are processes and those processes
>provide some level of protection against copyright violations. I say
>"some" because it is clearly impossible to be 100% sure.

And that is the point. You can't be sure, but you blather on that it is
impossible for SCO's claims to have any merit. It's not impossible,
and that doesn't indicate anything more than human fallability.

>>
>> The problems are real,
>Are they? So far, based on published evidence, there are no copyright
>violations in the Linux kernel. So far, the only known copyright
>violations are in the closed source software.

THE PROBLEM IS REAL. Gawd, again, such boneheaded stupidity.
Whether or not SCO has diddly, the problem still exists. How
many different ways does it need to be said?


>> I had the same problem on my site: somebody submitted an article,
>> I published it and only much later someone else pointed out that
>> large sections of it were taken verbatim from an O'Reilly
>> book. Well, heck, I can't read everything, can I? Nor can
>> Linux kernel folk. What makes it even harder for them is that
>> the code in question might be proprieatary and only someone
>> who worked there COULD even know it was copied.
>>
>> This *is* a problem, and it's incredibly dumb to insist that it
>> is not.

>So should open source project be held to a higher standard than closed
>source projects? If so, why?

Where does THAT non-sequitor come from? Who ever said or implied
such a thing? Where do you buy all these ochre colored fish you
are fond of dragging through this thread?


>Tell me, have YOU stopped believing SCO's management?

That's completely unrelated. Can you wrap your teeny brain
around the actual discussion?

--
tony@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html