Get APLawrence.com by RSSSCO's Letter to Congress
Fri Feb 27 16:18:46 GMT 2004 SCO's Letter to Congress
Of course, I'm not surprised. I expected it to come from Microsoft first, but SCO is hardly an unexpected source.
You can find links to this and a response from Usenix at http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/27/1317219.
It would be laughable if our Government weren't so darn receptive to business. Trouble is, I'm not at all sure that our congress-critters won't nod their heads in agreement. Honestly, I'd like to have a less pessimismistic attitude, but it's hard to convince myself that I have any justification for it.
Enter your email address for automatic notification of new posts here
(be sure to whitelist 'feedburner.com' if you use spam filtering)
| Views for this page | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Today | This Week | This Month | This Year | Overall |
| 1 | 6 | 15 | 222 | 1,472 |
Have you tried Searching this site?
Unix/Linux/Mac OS X support by phone, email or on-site: Support Rates
This is a Unix/Linux resource website. It contains technical articles about Unix, Linux and general computing related subjects, opinion, news, help files, how-to's, tutorials and more. We appreciate comments and article submissions.
Your ad here - $48.00 yearly!
http://thatitguy.com Business networking servers, Linux and Unix experts. In business since 1997! Windows and Exchange to Samba and Scalix migration experts.
UBB Computer Services Support for Openserver, Unixware and Linux. Windows integration with Unix/Linux servers. Hardware, Backup and Networking issues. Located near Sacramento CA, we provide onsite support throughout Northern CA and Nationwide via remote access. We are a SCO Authorized Partner and a Microlite BackupEdge Certified Reseller.
http://www.breakthru.com.au SCO (Openserver and Unixware), Unix, Solaris and Linux Consulting services including: Secure Networking Solutions; Linux based Firewalls; Backup Solutions; Secure Home to Office Network Setup; Phone, Remote and On-Site Support available - Satisfaction Guaranteed!
- Nov 21 07:55
@loudmouthman: correct, but how do you prove ANYTHING like that is accurate? You can't. A text file is no better or worse than anything. - Nov 21 07:40
@loudmouthman: well, a digital signature could prove it hadn't been altered. Text is no more insecure than anything else in that sense.
Related Posts
Publish your articles, comments, book reviews or opinions here!
CommentsBlog780 :
There are some opensource projects that are saying that SCO users cannot use their software, and SCO support is being dropped. I wonder what would happen if SAMBA decided to do this. Nmap is one of them, which is referenced in this article, and I have come across some other ones in the past month. I wonder how this trend will hurt SCO. If I find the other ones I have come across, I will post them here, but SCO is really painting themselves into a corner with this lawsuit.
- Bruce Garlock
Right. They are going to kill themselves, win or lose.
I don't think Fyodor was right in doing this, but I certainly understand the motivation and am not at all sure that I could hold the high moral ground were I in the same position.
--TonyLawrence
"I don't think Fyodor was right in doing this, but I certainly understand the motivation and am not at all sure that I could hold the high moral ground were I in the same position."
Well, it *is* their software and they are asserting the same rights that Daryl McBride is so quick to defend as he sets about suing everyone and their uncle. I don't think there's a moral high ground here -- Fyodor doesn't owe SCO anything, eh?
Where McBride misses the mark is in asserting that the GPL is intended to destroy the patent and copyright process. It does nothing of the sort. The GPL simply asserts that software originally released under the GPL can never be removed from the GPL and derivative works must be similarly released under the GPL.
Contrary to what both McBride and the misguided U.S. Supreme Court might wish, the Constitutional provision that our patent, trademark and copyright laws are based upon declares no special right to remuneration from one's inventions or artistic works. I fail to see how the Court could have ruled the way they did in the Ashcroft decision, and suspect a certain level of political "persuasion" somehow got into the process. As the old saying goes, the USA has the best government money can buy.
--BigDumbDinosaur
It's just this: "open" is open. It shouldn't be closed to people you don't like. Like freedom of speech isn't just for things we don't mind listening to.
--TonyLawrence
That's a good point, Tony. The software should be open to all. Sometimes I wish this was all a dream.
- Bruce Garlock
Hmmm, yes "open" is open - unless you say that the licence its distributed on is invalid ... then you leave the open source writer with 3 choises:
* 1. go the Public Domain / BSD way
* 2. distribute under a commercial licence
* 3. (as Fyodor did) pull the licence until such time as the licensee acknowledges the licence.
I find that I support Fyodor in this ... it's a damn shame that it has come this far - but the licence is either valid or not - you can't have it both ways (invalid and unconstitutional when speaking of the kernel - and valid and constitutional when speaking of software that you want).
- KimPetersen (btw. Tony? do you have a spammer problem in the Wiki?)
(spammer problem)
Now and then, yes, we do get a few stupid spams. I usually get around to deleting them sooner or later.
--TonyLawrence
Add your comments