The BBC has a great editorial on the current situation with SCO and Linux. In it, the author suggests that Linux isn’t immune from copyright violations simply because free software is morally superior; that without IP laws there would be nothing stopping anyone from ripping Linux off and therefore its users should show it more respect, and that there is no evidence that SCO’s claims are invalid. He also notes that there is no evidence that their claims are valid either. My take (Sean’s): he’s right. There is no reason to believe that someone couldn’t have snuck some SCO code into Linux. No one can go over the 30 million lines of code in a Linux distribution to check where the code came from – especially if it came from a closed source product in which case they would have no way of knowing. SCO may not be the bad guy, IBM might (wow, what a thought!) Of course, SCO might be blowing smoke, but the Linux community’s attitude has been quite poor. Personally, I think that if SCO code made its way into Linux, it won’t be much, it will be easily removed/replaced and life will go on. Remember, if SCO’s claims are valid and they lose, think of how the FSF would fare against Microsoft?
Uh, sorry, dude, but that was hardly the first response. The actual first response was, “No freakin’ way! And we’ll DOS-attack your ass for even suggesting it!”
Really? Sources, please?
The truth is that in nearly all the interviews with Linux leaders, the response was the same. It boiled down to “we don’t believe this to be true, but if it is, we’ll correct the situation ASAP.” Nowhere did I read about any Linux developer encouraging DDoS attacks.
Since when does Eric Raymond speak for all open source developers?
He certainly doesn’t. But show me a single example of a Linux developer endorsing the alleged DDoS attacks on SCO. Meanwhile, there are plenty of interviews with Linux, Bruce Perens, Eric Raymond and others in which they clearly state that if there is stolen code in Linux (even though they doubt that there is) then they’ll correct the situation as soon as SCO will be so kind as to indicate where the code is. The fact that SCO has not indicated where the code is, even though they would still be able to claim past damages, is a good indication that the code, in fact does not exist.
Nota that, since SCO has a legal duty to mitigate its losses (i.e. by revealing where the code is, something they’ll have to do eventually anay), they can’t even claim damages from the time they made their allegations forward. So it does not make legal sense to not reveal the code.
SCO must put up or shut up, otherwise they’re only digging their own grave – and it will be a legal demise, not one brought on by real or faked DDoS attacks.
If SCO had left the fight in the court of law I would agree with you. But hey have not, they have intentionally and with malice attacked the welfare of Linux as both an OS and a business. They have sent letters stating effectively demanding money from companies currently using Linux.
How trite. But as your buddies in the Linux “community” have probably pointed out to you, Linux can’t be harmed “as both an OS and a business.” It is free shlockware, as in beer.
Really? Sources, please?
You must be the only person on the planet who seriously believes that the Linux “community” wasn’t affiliated with the DDOS attack against SCO…
The truth is that in nearly all the interviews with Linux leaders, the response was the same. It boiled down to “we don’t believe this to be true, but if it is, we’ll correct the situation ASAP.”
Oh, really?!? So they’re going to reimburse SCO for negligently incorporating its IP?!? Awesome! Have they sent the BIG CHECK yet? Didn’t think so … /SARCASM
Nowhere did I read about any Linux developer encouraging DDoS attacks.
You can read?
He certainly doesn’t. But show me a single example of a Linux developer endorsing the alleged DDoS attacks on SCO.
Go to Slashdot. I don’t have time to point out the obvious to you.
Meanwhile, there are plenty of interviews with Linux, Bruce Perens, Eric Raymond and others in which they clearly state that if there is stolen code in Linux (even though they doubt that there is) then they’ll correct the situation as soon as SCO will be so kind as to indicate where the code is.
You’re hilarious! Do you do standup? Too bad Perens, Raymond, and others won’t be cutting SCO a check for its stolen IP. That’s the only way they could “correct the situation”. Don’t be surprised if Torvalds “Gatekeeper Extraordinaire” gets sued, as well. This could get real nasty before it’s over.
Nota that, since SCO has a legal duty to mitigate its losses (i.e. by revealing where the code is, something they’ll have to do eventually anay), they can’t even claim damages from the time they made their allegations forward. So it does not make legal sense to not reveal the code.
You airheads just repeat the same old talking points over and over that have been spilled into your little craniums by your bosses at Slashdot. SCO can’t mitigate its losses because the source code for Linux kernels in question has already been widely disseminated. If it WERE to point out exactly where the code is, all of your Linux buddies would start “innovating” by copying every last bit of code before the court ordered you to expunge it.
SCO dropped any pretense of professionalism when they started saying and doing dumb things like claiming their conflict with IBM represents ‘the future of IP rights in the software industry’ and sending extortion letters to companies.
Rrrrrright. I imagine your idea of “professionalism” would include SCO bending over for the Linux “community” and taking one for the Gipper. /SARCASM
Foo, Anonymous, Top speed (or whatever you are calling yourself this minute) You are just making a fool of yourself with your stupid Eric Raymond this, Slashdot that, Linux thieves. Your like a broken record.
You are so arrogant with your statements that you cannot see that in your perfect little IP protected world all of us would be beholden to a few large megasoftware corporations who would own all ideas and expressions. Your gross overexaggeration of what constitutes “infringing” is as insulting as SCO’s pathetic excuse that the GPL is invalid because of copyright law. God help us if we had to live in your software utopia. Oh thank you Megasoftcorp for making me take a mortgage on my house to pay for all your wonderful IP. It’s people like you that created people like ESR
Tell me Mr troll if SCO is the great defender of the IP faith why didn’t they buy a license for the cifs/smb protocol from M$ (as you seem to think they own it exclusively) instead of including that evil GPL’d Samba.
Bad SCO. IP thieves!
How often does open source software get copied into closed source software?
The world may never know..
I think it should be a requirement, like patents, to release all your source code when you want to sell a commercial software product. Anyone agree? In a system like that if you did not release your code you would not have any protection under copyright. Of course that would be suspecting everyone of being guilty until they prove themselves innocent.
Open source just makes it easy and fair.
>Even worse, some companies are forbidden from looking at the Linux sources because of IP issues. They don’t want to be tainted by even looking at the sources.<
Tell us who is forbidden to look at linux source code.
I tried http://www.sco.com a couple of days ago and again just now and got timeout both times. I guess they’re still under heavy and relentless bombardment. Or maybe they simply took the site down.
I was going to reply to your trolling. But I just cant be arsed.
but answer this question. Why are you always hanging around a site about alternative operating systems if you are so happy with your own choice ? Why ? come on tell us…. or fuck off somewhere else
dump linux u losers and go with windows. Especially XP probably the most secure system ever created in the entire universe.
Drop the zero go with the hero people
that last post was not by me, it was by a workmate. that is why the ip is similar. He will one day try linux though
he will be un-assimilliated
“First, I don’t see *how* the users should pay anything to SCO — if there is really some SCO’s code, it will be removed, simply. Because legally you can’t mix GPL code and proprietary code !”
Simple. Because if SCO can prove that there is some of their code in Linux, they can sue for past damage, which basically means loss of revenue. Given how much business commercial UNIX has lost because of Linux, the could potentially sue for hundreds of millions of dollars.
Yeah, right. I copy your IDEA, I sell it, and you, after getting money from me for all the damage I did to your business, go after all the users again.
Man, I already paid for all the copies I sold, and all the damage I did to you by selling your idea to all the buyers.
That is what it is all about…
SCO *cannot* go after the users for damages caused.
does gates and jobs have the same standards? besides this is the internet if any of us really wants some thing we all have connections to get it with out paying for it. that just the way it is we all take what we need and we hate paying for it MP3, OS, OFFICE, etc. and gates and jobs didn’t they steal also? just because i use linux doesn’t mean that i must be morally superior.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.sco.com
Is this information correct?
“The site http://www.sco.com is running Apache on Linux.”
Oh, I see, I though you actually had something to say. I didn’t realize you were a common troll.
You must be the only person on the planet who seriously believes that the Linux “community” wasn’t affiliated with the DDOS attack against SCO…
Again, unsubstantiated allegations. Proof, please? What? You got none? You’re full of it? That’s what I thought.
Oh, really?!? So they’re going to reimburse SCO for negligently incorporating its IP?!? Awesome! Have they sent the BIG CHECK yet? Didn’t think so … /SARCASM
Well, for them to have to reimburse SCO, the stolen IP would have to a) exist and b) be indentified. Then the person who incorporated, i.e. the ONLY guilty party in this, could be prosecuted.
Now, if you believe that one should pay before having proof, as you seem to indicate, then you might be interested in this nice bridge I have to sell between New York and Brooklyn…
“He certainly doesn’t. But show me a single example of a Linux developer endorsing the alleged DDoS attacks on SCO.”
Go to Slashdot. I don’t have time to point out the obvious to you.
In other words, you have no proof, you have no point, you are full of it and are just trolling to get the attention you crave for. Why don’t you go get laid, instead? You should try it, at least once. I’m sure you’d like it, troll.
You airheads just repeat the same old talking points over and over that have been spilled into your little craniums by your bosses at Slashdot.
Actually, no. The stuff about mitigating damages is basic law. That point was made by a lawyer, you know, someone who knows about this stuff – unlike you?
SCO can’t mitigate its losses because the source code for Linux kernels in question has already been widely disseminated. If it WERE to point out exactly where the code is, all of your Linux buddies would start “innovating” by copying every last bit of code before the court ordered you to expunge it.
I would try to answer this, except that it doesn’t make any sense. Perhaps you should try to find out what “mitigating damages” mean?
Oh, and by the way, you’re an idiot.