A group statement on SCO

[Al Byers]

Andrew Hunter wrote:

>I think this is a great idea.  A couple of questions:
>
>1)  Are you referring to their actions toward IBM, their letters to
>prominent corporate users, or both?
>
Everything about it is distasteful, but the letter to the corp users 
does the most damage to the Linux community. If the adoption of Linux by 
corporate users were to slacken, Linux would suffer somewhat because of 
depressed incentives. There will be less jobs available for Linux 
professionals. These jobs will be lost in order to possibly better SCO's 
bottom line.

>
>2)  Do you have any preliminary sketches of the letter?
>
No, I don't. I thought that perhaps the officers of the LUGs would get 
together and jointly draft something as an open letter and then have it 
available at the next LUG meetings for members to sign. Might increase 
attendance :0).

Of course the letter needs to be professional. I don't think that we 
should speculate as to SCO's motives. We should just point out that no 
one seems to know what the offending parts of Linux are - that is 
thousands of developers - therefore SCOs supposed contribution cannot 
represent a significant portion of the value of Linux, but their actions 
sabotage its value for all those people who have donated time and energy 
to its development and adoption.

I would also point out that Linux represents a way for developing 
economies to get ahead by not having to devote resources to proprietary 
software and the SCO's actions detract from its value and are, 
therefore, hurting the those people who are struggling to get ahead.

And I think that we should address the point of integrity and decency. 
Regardless of one's religious affiliations, it should be pointed out 
that this section of the country was settled and built up by pioneers 
who had much of the results of their previous work stolen from them and 
only wanted a place where they could toil and enjoy the fruits of their 
labors. In a sense, the Linux community is in a similar situation. It 
was built by the labor of many individuals who only wanted to be free 
from control by proprietary vendors. The progress of and contributions 
to Linux are well known - everything is done in the open - and if the 
supposedly "stolen" parts of Unix are there, they must be miniscule in 
proportion to the contributions by everyone else. Yet, in order to 
increase their company's bottom line, SCO is willing to poison Linux by 
spreading concern among corporate users, detracting from the work of so 
many and reducing the value of Linux for those who have labored on it 
and who want the freedom that it brings - doing to them what was done to 
our forebearers. This is what I think this locality should find so 
offensive and why it is significant that local LUGs take a stand.

I am sure there are other points to be made. Maybe if we all contribute, 
the job of the officers/writers will be easier. I suppose that this 
could be done in an ad hoc fashion, with those who have an opinion 
voicing it here and an open letter could be drawn up and then LUG 
attendees deciding if they wish to sign it or not. But, I think it would 
have more weight if the LUGs, themselves, endorsed it. I would rather 
see the LUG leaders take this on. I would be willing to help in any way 
I can.

-Al

>
>Andrew
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: pluglist-admin at plug.org [mailto:pluglist-admin at plug.org] On Behalf
>Of Al Byers
>Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 9:37 AM
>To: pluglist at plug.org
>Subject: A group statement on SCO
>
>I wasn't at the last PLUG meeting. Has there been any discussion about 
>making a policy statement about the actions of SCO? I feel that what 
>they are doing is putting a blight on our communities - both geographic 
>and techinical. If there is any claim to what they say, it has to rest 
>on minute technicalities, but by spreading the FUD factor to commercial 
>users of Linux, they are detracting from the hard work of the many 
>contributors that makes up most of Linux. By hurting Linux, they are 
>hurting the many developing businesses and economies that cannot afford 
>to pay for proprietary software. If they had any kind of integrity, they
>
>would simply point out the few offending parts; let the community take 
>them out and go on with life. This ploy of getting gain, not by 
>industry, but by manipulation of the court system does not represent 
>what our communities stand for, and a group statement to the local 
>papers seems in order. It is not right that the perpetrators of this 
>sham should go unexposed. Perhaps a joint statement by the various local
>
>LUGs would be better. Who wants to be on TV :0) ?
>
>-Al
>
>  
>


-- 
Al Byers
Automation Groups Inc
777 S. State St.
Orem, UT 84058
801.400.5111
http://www.automationgroups.com
byersa at automationgroups.com

We're "Open for Business" (http://www.ofbiz.org) 
 - the leader in Java-based Web services development tools