A group statement on SCO

[Grant Shipley]

--- Jesse Stay <jesse at thestays.org> wrote:
> Anyone know if any of the SCO guys are lurking on
> the list?  I'm sure
> they wouldn't be willing to talk,

I 'talk' quite a bit on the list and have since 1998.


 but if there are
> some of them lurking,
> I think it's kind of funny.  

I don't understand what is funny about SCO employees
(which there are many) being on the list, answering
questions and helping people out.

> 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 
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com