A group statement on SCO

[Jesse Stay]

Anyone know if any of the SCO guys are lurking on the list?  I'm sure
they wouldn't be willing to talk, but if there are some of them lurking,
I think it's kind of funny.  I hope they're getting some of this
reaction - the people on this list, including me, are the system
administrators that make the decisions to buy their software.  It's
business suicide for them to fight a battle like this.

-Jesse

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pluglist-admin at plug.org 
> [mailto:pluglist-admin at plug.org] On Behalf Of Al Byers
> Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 9:25 AM
> To: pluglist at plug.org
> Subject: Re: A group statement on SCO
> 
> 
> I have already thought of some other talking points. I hope 
> others will 
> contribute. Below:
> 
> Al Byers wrote:
> 
> > 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. 
> 
> I would also point out that the world wide adoption of Linux 
> is one of 
> the best examples of mankind helping one another and that 
> SCO's actions 
> are an example of mankind taking advantage of that goodwill.
> 
> >
> >
> > 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
> 
> One of the keys to the above arguments is that the value within Linux 
> that is attributable to SCO's proprietary holdings must be 
> insignificant. It would be nice to be able to "prove" that to 
> the casual 
> reader without having to resort to all the actions and arguments that 
> would be part of any court proceedings. I believe that the 
> fact that SCO 
> released a version of Linux with the offending parts therein and only 
> recently withdrew it, is a pretty compelling argument that 
> the portions 
> of Linux that might contain violation of intellectual property rights 
> must be small, for why else would it take the owning company 
> so long to 
> find that out.
> 
> I think any letter should call upon SCO to do the decent thing - 
> identify the offending parts so that the Linux community can replace 
> them and move on. They should not hijack the work of so many for 
> corporate gain. If they want compensation, it should be in 
> proportion to 
> the value contributed.
> 
> -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
> 
> 
> .===================================.
> | This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. |
> |      Don't Fear the Penguin.      |
> `==================================='
>