Professional Web Applications Themes

Not just SCO but look at FSF.... - SCO

For all those claiming SCO is the only bad guy please look at.... http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014linksys.html I will not quote the whole article, but this except should be enough. Software Linux's Hit Men Daniel Lyons, 10.14.03, 7:00 AM ET .... "But the spread of Linux could be hurt by another group--and ironically, it's the free-software proponents themselves. For months, in secret, the Free Software Foundation, a Boston-based group that controls the licensing process for Linux and other "free" programs, has been making threats to Cisco Systems (nasdaq: CSCO - news - people ) and Broadcom (nasdaq: BRCM - news - people ) ...

  1. #1

    Default Not just SCO but look at FSF....

    For all those claiming SCO is the only bad guy please look at....

    http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014linksys.html

    I will not quote the whole article, but this except should be enough.

    Software
    Linux's Hit Men
    Daniel Lyons, 10.14.03, 7:00 AM ET
    ....
    "But the spread of Linux could be hurt by another group--and ironically,
    it's the free-software proponents themselves.

    For months, in secret, the Free Software Foundation, a Boston-based
    group that controls the licensing process for Linux and other "free"
    programs, has been making threats to Cisco Systems (nasdaq: CSCO - news
    - people ) and Broadcom (nasdaq: BRCM - news - people ) over a
    networking router that runs the Linux operating system.

    The router is made by Linksys, a company Cisco acquired in June. It
    lets you hook computers together on a wireless Wi-Fi network, employing
    a high-speed standard called 802.11g. Aimed at home users, the $129
    device has been a smash hit, selling 400,000 units in the first quarter
    of this year alone.
    "
    ....

    Read the whole article to be better informed.
    Boyd Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....

    On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 06:08:02 +0000, Boyd Gerber <zenez.com> wrote: 

    The writer is not very well informed. As an earlier post in this very
    newsgroup showed, Cisco had conformed before the article was published
    (well, sort of, there was an ongoing discussion about the whether the
    modules were part of a collective work or whether it was a mere
    aggregation).

    So FSF is a "bad guy" for enforcing its copyrights? The whole SCO
    debacle is not about copyrights -- it's about SCO's claims to trade
    secret protection of derivative works. Don't believe me? Then show me
    one lawsuit SCO has initiated where SCO claims its copyrights are
    violated by Linux! Show me one invoice that SCO has sent out for use of
    its copyrights in Linux!

    Remember, SCO keeps using the meaningless term "Intellectual Property"
    to avoid making any clear copyright claims over Linux.

    Frankly, I also sick of media pundits who suggest that Linux would be
    more successful somehow without the GPL. To them, I suggest that such
    OS-es already exists: the *BSDs. Now, which are more successful?
    Joe Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....

    Boyd Gerber wrote:
     
     
     

    <clipped for brevity>

    You must be kidding Boyd!

    Are you serious? Really?

    Tell me Boyd, how does the article make Open Source the bad guy?

    8^)

    Brian

    Brian Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: just SCO but look at FSF....

    On Fri, Oct 17, 2003, Boyd Gerber wrote: 

    So? The FSF has been actively going after people who take GPL'ed software,
    and try to make it their own in direct violation of the terms of the GPL?
    Imagine that! If the GPL is to mean anything, the FSF needs to do this.
    If you use GPL'ed code, expect to adhere to the GPL. If you don't want to
    abide by the terms, develop the code yourself, or perhaps find something
    under the BSD or LGPL licenses.

    .... 

    And understand the bias of Forbes, and the technical knowledge of the
    author. That would be like trying to find a favorable article on Clarence
    Thomas or Ward Connerly in a NAACP publication or the New York Times
    (bastion of accurate journalism).

    Bill
    --
    INTERNET: COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
    UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
    FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
    URL: http://www.celestial.com/

    ``It's not what you pay a man but what he costs you that counts.''
    Will Rogers
    Bill Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....

    Boyd Gerber skrev: 


    My comment to the above article:

    "Golly .... Here i thought OpenSource was just mine to use as i wished,
    i actually have to obey the Copyright?????

    Wasn't the OpenSource movement communist? Now they actually demand that
    copyright is .... is ..... copyright?

    Damn the world must have changed before our eyes? That must *surely*
    hurt Linux!"
     

    Kim Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....

    On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 06:08:02 +0000, Boyd Gerber
    <zenez.com> wrote:
     

    Sounds like the great search for the $root of all evil. In this day
    and age, any company mentioned in the news is presumed to be evil.
     

    Actually, the discussion has been running for about a month. To the
    best of my knowledge, most of the time was spent by Cisco trying to
    determine their exposure should FSF press their point in the courts.
    Earlier this week, they decided that the FSF had a point and posted
    the source.
    http://www.linksys.com/support/gpl.asp
    I wanna see if it compiles and links so I can buy a WRT54G router and
    make it do some tricks (i.e. peer-to-peer repeat mode).


    --
    Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
    (831)421-6491 pgr (831)336-2558 home
    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
    santa-cruz.ca.us com
    Jeff Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: just SCO but look at FSF....

    On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Bill Campbell wrote: 
    >
    > So? The FSF has been actively going after people who take GPL'ed software,
    > and try to make it their own in direct violation of the terms of the GPL?
    > Imagine that! If the GPL is to mean anything, the FSF needs to do this.
    > If you use GPL'ed code, expect to adhere to the GPL. If you don't want to
    > abide by the terms, develop the code yourself, or perhaps find something
    > under the BSD or LGPL licenses.[/ref]


    I just wanted to point out you have to defend your rights no matter who
    you are or you loose them. So just because you defend your rights should
    not make you a vilian. Although SCO is doing more than that with all the
    ....
     
    >
    > And understand the bias of Forbes, and the technical knowledge of the
    > author. That would be like trying to find a favorable article on Clarence
    > Thomas or Ward Connerly in a NAACP publication or the New York Times
    > (bastion of accurate journalism).[/ref]

    I totally agree. I just hope to bring a note that most of this group try
    to be informed and just because on defends something does not make them
    the bad guy.

    Logic seen here SCO sues Therefore they are the bad guy. Same logic
    FSF sues therefore they are the bad guy.

    NOT! We do not know all the facts so just because we disagree with them
    does not automatically make them the bad guy! We need to see what happens
    as tony has said. BTW I agree with Tony!
    Boyd Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....

    Boyd Gerber <zenez.com> wrote: 
     
     

    I don't see how that makes FSF "bad guys"..

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

  9. #9

    Default Re: just SCO but look at FSF....

    On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 03:54:35 +0000, Boyd Gerber <zenez.com> wrote: 
    >>
    >> So? The FSF has been actively going after people who take GPL'ed software,
    >> and try to make it their own in direct violation of the terms of the GPL?
    >> Imagine that! If the GPL is to mean anything, the FSF needs to do this.
    >> If you use GPL'ed code, expect to adhere to the GPL. If you don't want to
    >> abide by the terms, develop the code yourself, or perhaps find something
    >> under the BSD or LGPL licenses.[/ref]
    >
    >
    >I just wanted to point out you have to defend your rights no matter who
    >you are or you loose them. So just because you defend your rights should
    >not make you a vilian. Although SCO is doing more than that with all the
    >...

    >>
    >> And understand the bias of Forbes, and the technical knowledge of the
    >> author. That would be like trying to find a favorable article on Clarence
    >> Thomas or Ward Connerly in a NAACP publication or the New York Times
    >> (bastion of accurate journalism).[/ref]
    >
    >I totally agree. I just hope to bring a note that most of this group try
    >to be informed and just because on defends something does not make them
    >the bad guy.
    >
    >Logic seen here SCO sues Therefore they are the bad guy. Same logic
    >FSF sues therefore they are the bad guy.
    >
    >NOT! We do not know all the facts so just because we disagree with them
    >does not automatically make them the bad guy! We need to see what happens
    >as tony has said. BTW I agree with Tony![/ref]

    We may not know all the facts, but there are quite a few that we do
    know. Firstly, SCO's claims against IBM rely on the trade secret
    provisions of IBM's license agreement and a really strange concept of
    "derivative". The license agreements are there to be read. We know the
    facts.

    We know that SGI has checked the kernel and found no code that infringes
    SCO's copyrights.

    We know that SCO's examples shown at SCOForum proved to be lies.

    We know that SCO is making conflicting statements in press releases and
    what is in the motions in the RedHat case.

    So, we do know quite a lot. None of it shows SCO in a good light.
    Joe Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: just SCO but look at FSF....

    Joe Dunning <invalid> wrote: 
     
     
     
     

    Absolutely correct. Personally, even if they do have real examples
    of misappropriated code, I STILL don't like what they are doing
    because of the potential for damage to Open Source, which was and is
    the only hope for Unix to survive agains those sobs in Redmond.

    But I still have to say that they have every right to pursue
    damages if the situation is as they say it is. I think they are
    being incredibly short-sighted and not understanding the larger
    picture here, and that their actions could ultimately do them far
    more damage than they understand. Pedestrians have the right
    of way at crosswalks too, but only a very special few just step out
    without looking.

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

  11. #11

    Default Re: just SCO but look at FSF....

    On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 10:53:59 +0000 (UTC), com wrote:
     




    >
    >Absolutely correct. Personally, even if they do have real examples
    >of misappropriated code, I STILL don't like what they are doing
    >because of the potential for damage to Open Source, which was and is
    >the only hope for Unix to survive agains those sobs in Redmond.
    >
    >But I still have to say that they have every right to pursue
    >damages if the situation is as they say it is. I think they are
    >being incredibly short-sighted and not understanding the larger
    >picture here, and that their actions could ultimately do them far
    >more damage than they understand. Pedestrians have the right
    >of way at crosswalks too, but only a very special few just step out
    >without looking.[/ref]

    Tony, I think you're ignoring the fact that McBride only has to
    continue this stock price pumping for 4 quarters to get his bonus, so
    he can then split from (and almost certainly sue) SCO before moving
    onto his next scam. It is short sighted by design. Hopefully you're
    not as gullible as the Boyd types around here, thinking that there's
    some grand long-term master plan here? It's a get-rich-quick scheme
    for SCO's execs; if they have to step on the heads of everyone else in
    the company to make cash, that's just a bonus to them...

    --
    FyRE < "War: The way Americans learn geography" >
    FyRE Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: just SCO but look at FSF....

    FyRE <demon.ku.oc.x> wrote:
     

    I don't know that, and either do you. I can certainly agree
    that your interpretation is possible, but so are others. You
    only see one possible truth..


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

  13. #13

    Default Re: just SCO but look at FSF....

    Bill Campbell <com> wrote in message news:<mi.celestial.com>... 
    >
    > And understand the bias of Forbes, and the technical knowledge of the
    > author.[/ref]

    Technical knowledge of authors is indeed always a problem in the
    general interest press. But what exactly do you claim Forbes' bias
    to be? They proclaim themselves "The capitalist tool", so are you saying
    that open source and/or the GPL is anti-capitalist, and because of that
    Forbes is biased against it?

    As I'm sure you know, there are a wide range of opinions about the
    relationship of open source and capitalism, including views that the
    two are compatible, incompatible, and orthogonal. The article and
    responses at http://slashdot.org/articles/980824/0854256.shtml
    quickly summarize many of these different viewpoints.
     

    Actually I think the NYT coverage of these IP and licensing issues
    has been pretty good, again allowing for it being a general interest
    publication. As for how Thomas and Scalia would vote if the GPL
    issue ever made it to the Supreme Court, I have no idea! Do you
    hazard a guess?

    Jonathan Schilling
    J. Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: just SCO but look at FSF....

    On 19 Oct 2003 07:55:19 -0700, com (J. L.
    Schilling) wrote:
     

    I read it and generally agree in principle. Open Source would not
    function without the ability of the individual author to impose their
    own software license and possibly enforce it in court. However, in
    practice, methinks it's all wishful thinking. The entire article and
    all of the subsequent comments assume that everyone involved will act
    in a rational manner and within the confines of ethics and law. I
    suspect that this is a false assumption. Money will make the
    decisions and the rules of the game. IBM will probably follow the
    example of Disney protecting their Micky Mouse copyright and do
    whatever is necessary to protect against furthur repetitions of such
    suits. No matter what the outcome of the litigation or negotiation,
    IBM has far too much IP at risk to consider Open Source to be a good
    thing. It will need to decide if they want to continue supporting
    Open Source, or to protect their intellectual property. Actually,
    they don't need to decide and are big enough to do both at the same
    time. While playing defender of Open Source in the press, they can
    also play politics in congress to protect their IP investments. When
    faced with loss of profit, companies and individuals do some rather
    disgusting things. I seriously expect to see that happen in this
    case.
     

    What case, or rather which case? The SCO vs IBM action will probably
    never make it to court. SCO doesn't have the resources to persue it,
    does not have a clear cut case, and does not have the political clout
    to make it a compelling issue. My guess(tm) is that it will be
    settled out of court before the 2005 court date, or in the unlikely
    event that SCO gets even more additional funding from legal
    speculators, it might be dragged out indefinately.

    The GNU license issue is probably something that the supremes may want
    to deal with. Duz an individual have the right to specify their own
    license for their IP and therefore retain control over derivative
    work? That will require a court test of the GPL, which the SCO vs IBM
    case will only muddle. Therefore, the GPL will need to be tested in a
    clear cut license infringement case, and not a muddled mess of
    marginal claims. My guess(tm) is that congress, in its infinite
    wisdom, as protector of the IP bottom line, will scribble some kind of
    "Uniform Software License Law" that imposes limits on software
    licenses similar to what it did for warranties. Probably in the name
    of "consumer protection" or some such fabrication. Never mind SCO vs
    IBM. That's the real threat to Open Source.




    --
    Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
    (831)421-6491 pgr (831)336-2558 home
    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
    santa-cruz.ca.us com
    Jeff Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....

    On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 com wrote: 


    >
    > I don't see how that makes FSF "bad guys"..[/ref]

    What I was trying to say is just because you protect your rights your not
    a bad guy. But Some here seem to think that just because you sue you are
    the bad guy. Sco may have a case, but from what they have shown
    publically it is doubtfull. I guess I was just fed up with because SCO
    sued they were the bad guys. Using the Same logic then the FSF would be
    bad guys for sueing or protecting their rights. I believe FSF was truely
    right in what they did. I just hate all the generalizing and stuff stated
    to be facts that really are the opinions of the poster. The facts at this
    time are not known.
    Boyd Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....

    Boyd Gerber wrote: 

    Listen you MORON, the FSF has absolutely no problem identifying what code
    they claim ownership of AND they are not trying to stick up innocent users.

    The Lying S at SCO refuse to identify WHAT proprietary IP found it's way
    into the Linux kernel and they are even dragging their feet in the IBM case
    where they are the plaintiffs!

    The SCO Group is behaving very badly, court case aside, and the neverending
    stream of lies is absolutely bizarre!

    I am selling SCO short!

    8^)

    Brian

    Brian Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....

    In article <pa4lb.138287$pl3.34763pd7tw3no>,
    Brian <com> wrote:
     

    Never let your emotions guide you stock purchases. Timing is
    everything. If you had sold short at the opening you'd have been
    ahead - but if you sold short 20 minutes later you'd be behind
    right now. If you went short at the opening, closed that
    position, and then went long you'd be ever further ahead.

    --
    Bill Vermillion - bv wjv . com
    Bill Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....

    Bill Vermillion wrote: 
     [/ref]
     

    Bill, I happen to know SCO is totally full of .

    I also know that if a judge rules SCO can't dismiss the RedHat case, the
    stock is going to freefall.

    I also know SCO is running out of time and excuses for not delivering up
    evidence in the IBM lawsuit.

    I also know that IBM is going to gut SCO with it's countersuit.

    As for SCOX - my investment is going to yield about $1600+ in todays trading
    so far - not too shabby for a Linux Zealot.

    I am going to let it ride for the duration - damn banks don't pay anything
    anyway.

    Best regards,

    Brian

    Brian Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....

    In article <IHflb.139497$9l5.45398pd7tw2no>,
    Brian <com> wrote: 
    > [/ref]
    > [/ref]
     

    That has nothing to do with my comment - it was just letting
    emotions pick stocks - which is what you appeared to be saying.
     

    Could be - but tnat's not today - and the stock will go up and
    down in the meantime.

    Daytrading can be dangerous - but I used to trade commodities at
    one time and that makes day trading look as safe as mothers milk.
     

    Has nothing to do with stock.
     
     

    Just so you move in and out as the market dictates. Sales/trades
    made with good business judgment are just fine - but you appeared
    to making judgements based on emotions as all you said was that you
    were going to sell SCO short. Volative stocks aren't something you
    want to buy or sell and just sit on.
     

    You've noticed that too.



    --
    Bill Vermillion - bv wjv . com
    Bill Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: Not just SCO but look at FSF....

    Bill Vermillion wrote: 

    I sold 2000 shares short at ~21 last week.

    We are now at 17.18 and falling.

    I'll buy back in when it hits 5.

    I expect by March, 2004.

    I am not a day trader but one of my clients is.

    8^)

    Brian

    Brian Guest

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139