|By Jeremy Geelan||
|September 9, 2003 12:00 AM EDT||
In an open letter to the OS community, Darl McBride writes: 'The most controversial issue in the information technology industry today is the ongoing battle over software copyrights and intellectual property. This battle is being fought largely between vendors who create and sell proprietary software, and the Open Source community. My company, the SCO Group, became a focus of this controversy when we filed a lawsuit against IBM alleging that SCO's proprietary Unix code has been illegally copied into the free Linux operating system...' Read the full letter here:
The most controversial issue in the information technology industry today is the ongoing battle over software copyrights and intellectual property. This battle is being fought largely between vendors who create and sell proprietary software, and the Open Source community. My company, the SCO Group, became a focus of this controversy when we filed a lawsuit against IBM alleging that SCO’s proprietary Unix code has been illegally copied into the free Linux operating system. In doing this we angered some in the Open Source community by pointing out obvious intellectual property problems that exist in the current Linux software development model.
This debate about Open Source software is healthy and beneficial. It offers long-term benefits to the industry by addressing a new business model in advance of wide-scale adoption by customers. But in the last week of August two developments occurred that adversely affect the long-term credibility of the Open Source community, with the general public and with customers.
The first development followed another series of Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks on SCO, which took place two weeks ago. These were the second and third such attacks in four months and have prevented Web users from accessing our web site and doing business with SCO. There is no question about the affiliation of the attacker – Open Source leader Eric Raymond was quoted as saying that he was contacted by the perpetrator and that “he’s one of us.” To Mr Raymond’s partial credit, he asked the attacker to stop. However, he has yet to disclose the identity of the perpetrator so that justice can be done.
No one can tolerate DDoS attacks and other kinds of attacks in this Information Age economy that relies so heavily on the Internet. Mr Raymond and the entire Open Source community need to aggressively help the industry police these types of crimes. If they fail to do so it casts a shadow over the entire Open Source movement and raises questions about whether Open Source is ready to take a central role in business computing. We cannot have a situation in which companies fear they may be next to suffer computer attacks if they take a business or legal position that angers the Open Source community. Until these illegal attacks are brought under control, enterprise customers and mainstream society will become increasingly alienated from anyone associated with this type of behavior.
The second development was an admission by Open Source leader Bruce Perens that UNIX System V code (owned by SCO) is, in fact, in Linux, and it shouldn’t be there. Mr Perens stated that there is “an error in the Linux developer’s process” which allowed Unix System V code that “didn’t belong in Linux” to end up in the Linux kernel (source: ComputerWire, August 25, 2003). Mr Perens continued with a string of arguments to justify the “error in the Linux developer’s process.” However, nothing can change the fact that a Linux developer on the payroll of Silicon Graphics stripped copyright attributions from copyrighted System V code that was licensed to Silicon Graphics under strict conditions of use, and then contributed that source code to Linux as though it was clean code owned and controlled by SGI. This is a clear violation of SGI’s contract and copyright obligations to SCO. We are currently working to try and resolve these issues with SGI.
This improper contribution of Unix code by SGI into Linux is one small example that reveals fundamental structural flaws in the Linux development process. In fact, this issue goes to the very heart of whether Open Source can be trusted as a development model for enterprise computing software. The intellectual property roots of Linux are obviously flawed at a systemic level under the current model. To date, we claim that more than one million lines of Unix System V protected code have been contributed to Linux through this model. The flaws inherent in the Linux process must be openly addressed and fixed.
At a minimum, IP sources should be checked to assure that copyright contributors have the authority to transfer copyrights in the code contributed to Open Source. This is just basic due diligence that governs every other part of corporate dealings. Rather than defend the “don’t ask, don’t tell” Linux intellectual property policy that caused the SCO v IBM case, the Open Source community should focus on customers’ needs. The Open Source community should assure that Open Source software has a solid intellectual property foundation that can give confidence to end users. I respectfully suggest to Open Source developers that this is a far better use of your collective resources and abilities than to defend and justify flawed intellectual property policies that are out of sync with the needs of enterprise computing customers.
I believe that the Open Source software model is at a critical stage of development. The Open Source community has its roots in counter-cultural ideals – the notion of “Hackers” against Big Business – but because of recent advances in Linux, the community now has the opportunity to develop software for mainstream American corporations and other global companies. If the Open Source community wants its products to be accepted by enterprise companies, the community itself must follow the rules and procedures that govern mainstream society. This is what global corporations will require. And it is these customers who will determine the ultimate fate of Open Source – not SCO, not IBM, and not Open Source leaders.
Some enterprise customers have accepted Open Source because IBM has put its name behind it. However, IBM and other Linux vendors are reportedly unwilling to provide intellectual property warranties to their customers. This means that Linux end users must take a hard look at the intellectual property underpinnings of Open Source products and at the GPL (GNU General Public License) licensing model itself.
If the Open Source community wants to develop products for enterprise corporations, it must respect and follow the rule of law. These rules include contracts, copyrights and other intellectual property laws. For several months SCO has been involved in a contentious legal case that we filed against IBM. What are the underlying intellectual property principles that have put SCO in a strong position in this hotly debated legal case? I’d summarize them in this way:
“Fair use” applies to educational, public service and related applications and does not justify commercial misappropriation. Books and Internet sites intended and authorized for the purpose of teaching and other non-commercial use cannot be copied for commercial use. We believe that some of the SCO software code that has ended up in the Linux operating system got there through this route. This violates our intellectual property rights.
Copyright attributions protect ownership and attribution rights –they cannot simply be changed or stripped away. This is how copyright owners maintain control of their legal rights and prevent unauthorized transfer of ownership. Our proprietary software code has been copied into Linux by people who simply stripped off SCO’s copyright notice or contributed derivative works in violation of our intellectual property rights. This is improper.
In copyright law, ownership cannot be transferred without express, written authority of a copyright holder. Some have claimed that, because SCO software code was present in software distributed under the GPL, SCO has forfeited its rights to this code. Not so – SCO never gave permission, or granted rights, for this to happen.
Transfer of copyright ownership without express written authority of all proper parties is null and void.
Use of derivative rights in copyrighted material is defined by the scope of a license grant. An authorized derivative work may not be used beyond the scope of a license grant. License grants regarding derivative works vary from license to license – some are broad and some are narrow. In other words, the license itself defines the scope of permissive use, and licensees agree to be bound by that definition. One reason SCO sued IBM is due to our assertions that IBM has violated the terms of the specific IBM/SCO license agreement through its handling of derivative works. We believe our evidence is compelling on this issue.
The copyright rules that underlie SCO’s case are not disputable. They provide a solid foundation for any software development model, including Open Source. Rather than ignore or challenge copyright laws, Open Source developers will advance their cause by respecting the rules of law that built our society into what it is today. This is the primary path towards giving enterprise companies the assurance they need to accept Open Source products at the core of their business infrastructure. Customers need to know that Open Source is legal and stable.
Finally, it is clear that the Open Source community needs a business model that is sustainable, if it is to grow beyond a part-time avocation into an enterprise-trusted development model. Free Open Source software primarily benefits large vendors, which sell hardware and expensive services that support Linux, but not Linux itself. By providing Open Source software without a warranty, these largest vendors avoid significant costs while increasing their services revenue. Today, that’s the viable Open Source business model. Other Linux companies have already failed and many more are struggling to survive. Few are consistently profitable. It’s time for everyone else in the industry, individuals and small corporations, to under this and to implement our own business model – something that keeps us alive and profitable. In the long term, the financial stability of software vendors and the legality of their software products are more important to enterprise customers than free software. Rather than fight for the right for free software, it’s far more valuable to design a new business model that enhances the stability and trustworthiness of the Open Source community in the eyes of enterprise customers.
A sustainable business model for software development can be built only on an intellectual property foundation. I invite the Open Source community to explore these possibilities for your own benefit within an Open Source model. Further, the SCO Group is open to ideas of working with the Open Source community to monetize software technology and its underlying intellectual property for all contributors, not just SCO.
In the meantime, I will continue to protect SCO’s intellectual property and contractual rights. The process moving forward will not be easy. It is easier for some in the Open Source community to fire off a “rant” than to sit across a negotiation table. But if the Open Source community is to become a software developer for global corporations, respect for intellectual property is not optional – it is mandatory. Working together, there are ways we can make sure this happens.
Best regards to all,
The SCO Group
|Eric Smith 09/09/03 01:48:01 PM EDT|
Darl was correct that copyright ownership can only be transfereed by a legal agreement, though he is incorrect in stating that it must be in writing. A verbal contract can be enforcable. In any case, this is irrelevant.
The GPL does not transfer ownership. It grants a license. No one has claimed that SCO has given away Unix code or transferred ownership. But by redistributing Linux under the GPL terms, SCO has granted a license to any code in Linux which they may own.
In the unlikely event that the GPL is found to be invalid, as Darl has claimed, SCO will be in even worse shape than they are now. The GPL is the only thing that has allowed SCO to distribute the Linux kernel at all; if the GPL is invalid, SCO is guilty of tens or hundreds of thousands of counts of copyright violation themselves. At up to $150K damages per count, they could have to pay damages comparable to what they've asked from IBM.
|Darly 09/09/03 01:40:35 PM EDT|
2 key points:
1. ANYONE with access to a highspeed line could commit a DOS attack on any company. How can you possibly blame the 'opensource community' for the actions of one person?!?!? Furthuremore, theres no possible way to prove SCO didnt attack itself, to place blame elsewhere.
2. What do you mean 'if' linux will be used in enterprises worldwide? McBride seems to have forgotten that 67% of the internet is composed of Linux machines! Look at the adoption curve of Linux, and the Internet. Linux IS the internet, enterprises base their entire ecommerce operations off of it. Hes just mad SCO is nt getting a cut off of this big business, because their products are worthless.
Dont listen to this crap. Darly is simply 'ranting' while he can, since no one will listen to him after this blows over (AND IT WILL). Its very interesting to see, Darl McBride worked for Novel around the same time the rights were transfered to SCO. He's been CEO for less then 2 years, and already going after the entire community!??! This is completely rediculous, how can this clown be taken seriously!? Extorsion, espesically from the international linux community, is a serious offense Darly McBrideee, think about your actions. And dont say you are doing this to benefit the OS Business model, your doing it for personal financial gain.
|JALU 09/09/03 01:39:49 PM EDT|
You say that the Linux development model is flawed and that it allows the inclusion of proprietary intelectual property into Linux (and you go on to claim that there are 'millions of lines' of stolen code in Linux. But what about SCO's development model? How much 'stolen' code has ended up there? How much GPL'ed code or code from the BSD's has ended up in SCO? We have no idea of course, since we have no access to your source code. But with Linux you can follow the entire history back to day one - it's open source after all. That's OPEN Darl as in everybody gets to take a look at the process.
So far the 'stolen' code you've shown from Linux has turned out to not be stolen at all. Your evidence is lacking and so your claims seem totally spurious. Until you can actually produce some of these millions of lines of 'stolen' code, why the hell should we believe you? You have absolutely 0 credibility at this point. Most of us think you're delusional.
Show us the code or just shut up! Yeah, you've said you're going to show it in court. So basically you're saying that you don't care about the truth, you just want the cash. You probably think that prehaps you can pull the wool over the eyes of a Judge & Jury (hey, it happens all the time) - but of course in the long run you're not gonna fool knowledgable people. If you were really interested in improving the open source development model you'd work with the open source community to help us remove the so-called stolen code. You're not at all interested in 'sitting across the negotiating table' with the open source community.
|puhlease 09/09/03 01:36:31 PM EDT|
Shut up and get your lying ass in the courtroom. If SCO is telling the truth they should have no problem winning in court . I'm tiring of hearing about how SCO owns this and that code but doesn't show any evidence. Just keep selling off your stock before it crashes into the ground.
|anonymous 09/09/03 01:16:05 PM EDT|
Your attempt to extract licensing fees from free software are criminal and fraudulent. You belong in jail. Your outright lies about the source and licensing of code (eg: BPF and memory allocation code open sourced by your own company), misleading and inaccurate quoting of open source developers, attempt to make your company's primary source of profit bogus lawsuits and threats, and attempt to hijack the work of thousands of developer's community-contributed work for your own monetary gain all demonstrate that your ethics are deep in the gutter. I would never conciously do business with a company as unethical and dishonest as yours.
- A developer
|Brad McConnell 09/09/03 01:11:29 PM EDT|
Unfortunately, this whole article really just comes off as an insult. All I can think about when reading it is this -- SCO USES Open Source software, such as Samba, in products that it markets. Quite hypocritical to admonish the entire community and leech off their success while one does it.
If he wants to attack people that abused a company's IP, that's one thing. But this blanket generalization of the entire community as rogues is childishly ignorant, and will determine his fate.
|Concerned 09/09/03 01:02:25 PM EDT|
I wonder if there is any truth to the rumor that
|Gianluca Cardinale 09/09/03 01:00:41 PM EDT|
If DDoS attacks are shame for the Open Source community, FUD campaigns surely are the same for the traditional, copyright-based IT business, and everyone knows who started it. McBride stop whining, you're pathetic! You're in trouble, that's all, and you can't dare to demand that correctness your company obviously lacks.
|Tim Neu 09/09/03 01:00:40 PM EDT|
Either SCO operates under the GPL and did give permission for their works to be used & redistributed commercially, or SCO is guilty of commercial copyright infringement for selling Linux without a license (since they claim the GPL license doesn't apply).
I don't know that I'd go tooting the "GPL license didn't apply" horn, were I in the same boat. Commercial copyright infringement is, after all, a criminal offense...
If the GPL license doesn't apply, they had better hope they have written permission for redistributiong linux from all developers who have ever contributed to the linux kernel! Good luck with all that.
|Timmeh 09/09/03 12:55:09 PM EDT|
Because a small minority of people (and it is a small minority out of the whole world) DOES NOT MEAN you can point the finger at a larger part of the open source community. It does not say anything about the community as a whole. I am offended by this.
This is not a row about intellectual property rights, this is all about money.
Before any claim can be made seriously SCO must make known the "more than one million lines" of code.
I will continue to develop on open source platforms and will not pay ANY money to SCO. This letter is not aimed at the open source community, it is aimed at brainwashing others to anti-open source opinions, should they actually happen to care to read this letter.
Mr McBride, how dare you try and address a community full of normal decent hard working people, IT professionals, students, researchers in this manner and ask anything of us, when you repeatedly insult us all the way through the letter.
Do you think many IT professionals are going to want to choose you after all this negative publicity (or death rattle?) that you created?
Oh, and by the way, I will make sure that any of my current or future employers do not purchase any operating system, product or service from you, and I will make sure all the IT professionals I work with hate you too.
|Kurt 09/09/03 12:52:25 PM EDT|
The open letter reads alot smoother when you imagine Vader's voice in your head. If there is stolen code in linux then we need to get it out of there and re-write the modules ourselves. I know we have the talent. Once we do that, they have no hand in the Open Source future and we can give them the finger.
|Daniel 09/09/03 12:45:15 PM EDT|
"But if the Open Source community is to become a software developer for global corporations, respect for intellectual property is not optional – it is mandatory."
Wrong turdwagon... it's only mandatory if you insist on making MONEY from software.
Not everyone subscribes to that view.
DIE SCO... DIE DIE DIE.
|Brian 09/09/03 12:38:31 PM EDT|
Darl - did you ever consider that (speaking for the entire opensource community) we'd like to see exactly what you're claims are, and then we'd consult counsel and see if we're violating them, THEN we'd like to see if we can engineer a better solution which is not bound to your ideas of fair use. Until then - (on behalf of the whole unix community) .. we hope the DDOS does as much for your business, as you've done for ours.
|J. R. Pascucci 09/09/03 12:38:00 PM EDT|
Darl, you lying jackass...
From the original article you referenced:
"In this case, there was an error in the Linux developer's process (at SGI), and we lucked out that it wasn't worse. It turns out that we have a legal right to use the code in question, but it doesn't belong in Linux and has been removed.
These slides have several C syntax errors and would never compile. So, they don't quite represent any source code in Linux. But we've found the code they refer to. It is included in code copyrighed by AT&T and released as Open Source under the BSD license by Caldera, the company that now calls itself SCO. The Linux developers have a legal right to make use of the code under that license. No violation of SCO's copyright or trade secrets is taking place."
|David Wall 09/09/03 12:28:33 PM EDT|
It is interesting that SCO would find the DDoS attack, which is irresponsible and likely illegal, to be abhorrent and calls into question the credibility of the entire open source community, yet has itself shown questionable legal tactics and illegal attempts at extorting payments for software licenses it doesn't own and that don't require payments to SCO or any other party whatsoever.
The DDoS attack was not orchestrated by the open source community, so painting the entire group with such a broad brush is unfair. Nobody says all proprietary software vendors are evil just because SCO has brought its lawsuit against IBM and has already been fined for misrepresenting its ownership of Linux and illegally trying to force companies through fear and intimidation to pay SCO for Linux, even though SCO doesn't own Linux.
While it may be proven that IBM and SGI, both proprietary software vendors by the way, had developers illegally copy proprietary code into Linux, that's not Linux's fault per se. Those employees should be fired and charges of theft should be applied if it's proven to be true, though early source code leaks from SCO don't even support this assertion. However, Linux was unwittingly tricked into accepting such code, if indeed it was illegally provided and isn't, in fact, BSD code or even GPL code. This doesn't make customers of Linux any more culpable than if it was discovered that Ford had been selling its cars with stolen parts. And Ford would only be culpable if it was shown that Ford knew stolen parts were being included and didn't do anything to prevent it. Suing owners of Ford cars would be frivolous.
The open source world, however, shows all code it delivers, with full version control tracking, so it doesn't do anything behind closed doors. If such code was illegally added to Linux, it would have to be proven that Linux or GNU knew such matters were taking place and failed to rectify matters. However, each requires its developers to sign contracts explicity saying such stealing is not allowed, and whatever code was contributed and accepted was then published for all to see so that any theft could be easily detected. I don't think the open source world would applaud those developers who made contributions pretending it was their own hard work. After all, such disgraceful conduct will cause them all a lot of rework that could have been avoided if they simply had kept that code to themselves.
So why does the open source movement get blamed because a few developers from proprietary software companies illegally contributed code? Why not blame proprietary software vendor programmers who clearly steal other people's code. If they've done this, how many lines of GPL code has been stolen and incorporated into proprietary systems? These are the same developers who lack ethics, so it's highly probable they'd go either way when stealing code. The difference is that the proprietary software vendors never show their code, so theft is impossible to detect without an employee blowing the whistle.
Next, open source was not designed to be a "development model for enterprise computing software." In fact, while open source software is high quality and often works well in the enterprise, it was certainly designed to be the exact opposite of the current enterprise software model. With open source, the code is open, instead of closed. The software can be used by anybody free of charge, instead of paying licensing fees. Releases are made when the code is ready, instead of when an artificial deadline looms. Software fixes can be made directly instead of just being forced to report bugs and hope they get fixed later. The software is developed by an unpaid group of dedicated individuals from around the world, instead of developed by highly paid employees within a corporate department. Knowledge is shared for the benefit of the world, instead of horded in a failed attempt to maximize profits at the expense of improving software overall.
Why would SCO be so ignorant as to believe that open source developers would want to work hard to create software for enterprises who think they can then capitalize on that work without compensation? Just because the code is valuable to enterprises doesn't mean open source people intend to convert over to proprietary business tactics. Most do that in their day jobs, and open source doesn't want to be enterprise-ified!
Nobody in the open source community worries that enterprises will determine their fate. In fact, they have done this precisely to control their own fate and not be at the beck and call of lawyers, greedy marketers and those who think knowledge shouldn't be shared for the improvement of the entire software industry. The open source community doesn't need a business model whatsoever. SCO needs one and, unfortunately, it doesn't appear to have anything beyond trying to extort licensing revenues from products it never developed itself (all of its IP seems to have been acquired, not created by them).
SCO claims that they never transferred the rights of their intellectual property. This must be proven. We need to see the exact code in question and who contributed it. If SCO's code was illegally stolen, I'm sure those in the open source community would want it removed and would replace it. The fact that SCO sold its version of Linux, including the source code, under the GPL for years would certainly indicate that they transferred those rights. If it was unwittingly done, then certainly they should understand that those in the open source community also unwittingly allowed the code to be included by proprietary software programmers who violated SCO's rights. SCO should blame itself for allowing such code to be included and released by them for years before bringing it to anybody's attention. SCO should blame itself for continuing to hide their claimed violations from the very people who can rectify matters.
And lastly, SCO has simply failed to prove its allegations that their software was even stolen or by whom. The lawsuits are far from being resolved, and SCO has made no real attempt to get matters resolved since it knows full well that it released the code itself under the GPL and profited from that release over several years. Now it wants it back since it failed to win any mindshare in the Linux world despite figuring it would be the leader (after all, it owned Unix and provided its own Linux distribution).
Yozons Signed & Secured - Secure document delivery and electronic signatures
|Tom 7 09/09/03 12:26:26 PM EDT|
Actually, this may be the most reasonable thing to come out of Darl's mouth since the fiasco started. It is true that if the open source movement wants to create "enterprise" software that "meets the needs of today's demanding e-business customers" or some shit, that they should really work on the way they spin their work. I don't actually care about enterprise software, myself, but some people do and they should pay attention that part. (This is why I align myself with the Free Software movement rather than the Open Source movement.)
But the really sad thing about this letter is that it acts as if Darl is just waiting at the negotiation table to resolve this. Yet, despite totally reasonable requests (and IP-protecting methodologies) from the "open source community" to discover the purportedly infringing code so that it can be dealt with, SCO has *not* been willing to do that. All these IP issues could be resolved in weeks if not days with the cooperation of SCO.
|Chris 09/09/03 12:07:37 PM EDT|
I can't fathom reading past the first few paragraphs; specifically, I had to stop here:
There is no question about the affiliation of the attacker – Open Source leader Eric Raymond was quoted as saying that he was contacted by the perpetrator and that “he’s one of us.” To Mr Raymond’s partial credit, he asked the attacker to stop. However, he has yet to disclose the identity of the perpetrator so that justice can be done.
Does this %#@#! not understand even the most basic form of irony? ``... However, SCO has yet to disclose the identity of this code so that justice can be done.''
What an Ass.
|Max Lybbert 09/09/03 11:51:18 AM EDT|
LOL. I know most of you already know this stuff, but for those that don't:
/* The first development followed another series of Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks on SCO, which took place two weeks ago. These were the second and third such attacks in four months
At the time SCO claimed the third attack was no attack. That the company had voluntarily taken the site down in order to update. Then again, SCO also claimed to have considered making a formal argument. Sounds like SCO executives are still making statements that aren't true.
/* There is no question about the affiliation of the attacker – Open Source leader Eric Raymond was quoted as saying that he was contacted by the perpetrator and that “he’s one of us.”
And ESR lamented that the perpetrator was "one of us." This would count as misquoting ESR.
/* The second development was an admission by Open Source leader Bruce Perens that UNIX System V code (owned by SCO) is, in fact, in Linux, and it shouldn’t be there.
Slashdot found this article, and Perens "admitted" that the code hade been freely released by Caldera. SGI hadn't properly attributed Caldera/SCO, but the code was free to use.
/* This is a clear violation of SGI’s contract and copyright obligations to SCO. We are currently working to try and resolve these issues with SGI.
Finally, admission (if we can believe statements from McBride), that SGI is the next target. Halloween IX (www.opensource.org) makes a good point that SGI's Unix (and Linux 2.2, in the case of Titanic) is used in animating motion pictures. SCO Unix is used to run cash registers at McDonald's. Hmmm.
/* The intellectual property roots of Linux are obviously flawed at a systemic level under the current model. To date, we claim that more than one million lines of Unix System V protected code have been contributed to Linux through this model.
... and we claim that no lines were in Linux 2.2. And I (Max) am not sure that there are a million different lines between 2.2 and 2.4. Interesting.
/* At a minimum, IP sources should be checked to assure that copyright contributors have the authority to transfer copyrights in the code contributed to Open Source. This is just basic due diligence that governs every other part of corporate dealings.
And this is currently done. Nobody can *contribute* to any large-scale project (GNU, Apache, *Linux*) without signing the proper paperwork, stating (among other things) that contributed code is noninfringing. Anybody can make local changes, but those changes must be noninfringing to be contributed back to the community.
"Checking" IP sources more than this is impossible. SCO is in violation of four IBM patents, and no amount of checking would have caught these violations. SCO doesn't have a way to check for even simple copyright violations.
/* If the Open Source community wants to develop products for enterprise corporations, it must respect and follow the rule of law.
Which it does.
On the other hand, if SCO wants enterprise customers, it should release enterprise products (note Halloween IX), and not abuse the legal system. SCO's earlier statement that "contracts are what you use against organizations you have relationships with" is very telling.
/* “Fair use” applies to educational, public service and related applications and does not justify commercial misappropriation.
This is the Chewbacca defense refered to on Slashdot. Nobody said a thing about fair use. LOL.
/* Copyright attributions protect ownership and attribution rights –they cannot simply be changed or stripped away.
As SCO has done inside its own software (as demonstraded to Kieran O'Shaughnessy in Australia recently).
/* In copyright law, ownership cannot be transferred without express, written authority of a copyright holder.
Nobody suggested that actual ownership of SCO code was ever transfered. This is another part of the Chewbacca defense.
/* Some have claimed that, because SCO software code was present in software distributed under the GPL, SCO has forfeited its rights to this code.
No. Some lawyers who happen to teach law at the nation's top universities have claimed that since SCO released the code under the GPL, a license grant, that SCO cannot later ask for royalties. Those same lawyers have pointed out that the lawsuit is about trade secrets, not copyright, and an organization that doesn't pay attention to what it releases under the GPL will have many questions to answer if it hopes to keep those trade secrets.
/* Use of derivative rights in copyrighted material is defined by the scope of a license grant.
Like the GPL.
/* One reason SCO sued IBM is due to our assertions that IBM has violated the terms of the specific IBM/SCO license agreement through its handling of derivative works.
And the open source community is upset because SCO's actions are a violation of the license grant for derivitive works contained in the GPL. One of IBM's counterclaims is that SCO's actual use of GPLed code from IBM is just as bad as what SCO imagines IBM did.
/* We believe our evidence is compelling on this issue.
But nobody else agrees.
/* The copyright rules that underlie SCO’s case are not disputable.
Including the lack of a restriction on *running* copyrighted works. Public display, public performance, derivitive works, etc. *are* coverd, running is not.
/* Finally, it is clear that the Open Source community needs a business model that is sustainable, if it is to grow beyond a part-time avocation into an enterprise-trusted development model.
And IBM and Red Hat both make much more money than SCO. Even at its inflated price, all SCO stock is worth about $150 million, all Red Hat stock is worth $1.5 billion (B, not M). I know which model I'm watching.
|B. Hutfless 09/09/03 11:50:16 AM EDT|
I have only one piece of advice for Mr. McBride.
I strong suggest you retain your own attorney, as you have already violated several state and federal laws, and you are very close to going to jail.
Do the words "knowingly" and "willful" have an meaning to you sir? Has a lawyer explained "libel" or "defamation of character" to you? As corporate officer of the SCO Group, has an attorney explained to you the consequences of making "false" public statements?
Sir, please do your self a favor and "shut up"!
|Tom J 09/09/03 11:45:39 AM EDT|
This is my favorite: "It is easier for some in the Open Source community to fire off a “rant” than to sit across a negotiation table".
McBride's unjustified claims are nothing but a "rant".
His letter is a pitiful plead for someone to take him seriously.
|Tom Law 09/09/03 11:38:39 AM EDT|
I thought I hated SCO, but the I learned they made a distro, so I didnt, but now I know that I do. The open letter is a just half truths and lies, with some brainwashing.
|Gaston 09/09/03 11:32:28 AM EDT|
This letter is from a pervert. He's just putting his own wrongdoings on others, plain and simple.
|adebayo omo-dare 09/09/03 11:30:31 AM EDT|
Open comment to Darl McBride
Just to clarify - The Open Source community is not angered because you have pointed out obvious intellectual property problems that exist in the current Linux software development model, they are angered by the vagueness and the intentionally disruptive profiteering attitude of yourself and your organisation.
Consistently you and your organisation fail on all levels to fully clarify your position, your intent and your arguments. Much as above, where you mention that you have pointed out problems in the development model of Linux,you obviously attack what you consider to be the weakest link in the process as a divesionary tactic. This is done in a manner that seeks to cast blame on the very fabric of the Open Source development environment with the aim of using such an assertion to facilitate the credibility of your case.
Yet if the model itself was the core problem, then environments that do not adhere to the model should not have IP violations of any kind - why then is court time taken up by cases that involve Microsoft and the like?
Mr McBride - Your org adhered to the philosophies of OpenSource under the GPL and its model. Your org not only attempted to benefit from the very model you now wish to denigrate, but you also promoted its philosophies to all of your Linux clients. You say you want to help the community become better, show us the code. show us where there are violations and stop putting your organisation in a position where it is at greatest risk.
You and SCO are beginning to look like the soldier with a single gun and a single bullet in a trench, the other side of which rests an enemy batallion.Irrespective of how this pans out, no coder or technician that has a great respect for their labour, would be able to allow themselves to be tainted by the SCO name.
So do us a favour and stop complaining about how badly you are being treated by crackers, and start telling us where the damned violations are...
|AC 09/09/03 11:19:34 AM EDT|
Tell us where the frigg'n offending code is so we can go remove it and re-design/code for the better. Quit whinning because no one is listening.
|Fabian Salamanca 09/09/03 11:17:14 AM EDT|
Ok, DDoS attacks are illegal and those guys must be taken to court and pay for the damages, but the code is still clean, why didn't you comment on the published code which is supposed to come from Open Source UN*X and ripped off the Linux Kernel because it was ugly?? You didn't talk about that code being for ia64, how many of us are using ia64? not so many, so whats the point?
Are you aware that your statements are producing FUD?
Are you aware that the way you are publishing your statements are affecting developers prestige?
Are you aware that they way you are doing things is making everybody think that its only for the money? (Why after 12 years of development you suddenly find illegal code in Linux?)
Why dont you jump in the Open Source wagon? Instead of fighting against the community?
|AntiDarl 09/09/03 11:13:07 AM EDT|
I see what you mean. Open source is a bad paradigm. If somebody tries to do something shady in open source, the code is there for the world to see. Whereas with proprietary software, you could put as much infringing code into your product as you want. Who's going to know? Your employees, maybe, who you've had sign NDAs.
I really have to hand it to you for this genius twist. I'd give you credit but I'd suspect some of the minds of Microsoft may have put you up to it. You turn things around and say there is infringing code, but YOU WON'T TELL ANYONE WHAT IT IS! That's so brilliant! That kind of innovation is what keeps the USA on top, buddy!
OK, as you said 'it's easy to write a rant'. Well, maybe you're just sore it didn't turn out to be 'easy to get IBM to buy you out'.
Have fun getting squashed like the cockroach you are by IBM's skilled legal team.
|Richard McKenzie 09/09/03 11:09:50 AM EDT|
There are two fundamental problems with your arguement.
1) If you know who is attacking sco.com, then take it to the authorities. Not name someone who allegedly knows in an open letter to the public. That can be called slander in some circles.
2) Let's get real for a second. If "millions of lines" have been copied into Linux, why aren't they on your web site for the public and opensource community to view and make their own decisions. If the "millions of lines" concept were true, doing this would blow IBM's case out of the water.
While we are on the subject of IBM, let's take a look at some of their customers. One being the United States government. They use AIX, among other things, to secure the nuclear defense of this nation. Speaking of the Feds, I am not sure why Ashcroft hasn't used his Police-state Patriot Act to put you, Canopy, and SCO in camp X-Ray, but be assured, that is where you belong.
Your case is like taking the ball and going home. Caldera contributes to Linux right along with IBM, HP, Novell, and others BUT Caldera is better at litigation than sales. So Caldera Linux fails. So you decide open source can't make you money so you decide to screw everyone else that uses it. You are such a asshole.
Let me tell you this and I think I speak for everyone on this page when I say this. In the rare chance you win this lawsuit, you will own the rights to a dead Linux kernel. Nobody will develop for it or use it anymore. The open source community will probably go for something else.
I will personally pull it off all of my servers and encourage my customers to do the same.
You are a sorry human being not deserving the air you breathe.
Worst regards to you,
|David 09/09/03 11:08:54 AM EDT|
Mr. McBride seems to be confused about viable business models in the software industry.
I don't think *any* of the big players - Microsoft, Sun, Oracle, or even Red Hat - have had a business model that focused on selling software in quite some time. You don't make money selling software anymore. You make money selling services and support; the software just locks customers in to your particular services and support.
|Scoooter 09/09/03 11:07:51 AM EDT|
WOW!! Darl better leave now! Looks like he may have a hard time finding a job after SCO goes belly up!! I have not seen such a united front against shitheads since...well, never!! Keep up the standoff, Opensource will prevail!
|John Clute 09/09/03 11:01:44 AM EDT|
What if he is right? What if somebody did add Unix V code into linux. That's stealing, people have worked hard to make that code work and what if somebody did add code that didn't belong to them, that's wrong. I personally believe linux should be free as a matter of fact all operating systems should be free. That is something that should just come with the computer, however, people have worked hard to make the software work and if they want to be paid for their work then they should be rewarded for what they have done. It is as simple as that. Why is that linux people don't want to buy software?
|Smarter than Darl 09/09/03 10:58:04 AM EDT|
Thanks for writing. I submit that as just-another-CEO to take over a nearly endless chain of transfers of IP related to SCO's copyrighted source, you have no moral platform from which to speak. You have not overseen or profited from any significant developmont.
Second, I submit that SCO continues to demonstrate its bad faith by not revealing the source code in question. You have claimed it would 'give linux people a way to clean up the code'. I disagree. There are many ways in which you can cryptographically ensure that a given copy of code is 'assured' to be the original code. In fact, MD5 checksums are published with kernel sources; it isn't possible to alter the code without altering those checksums, and there is no known way to fake a given checksum. I'm sure many linux luminaries, while unwilling to sign your draconion NDA, would be more than happy to PGP sign the MD5 signature of a linux distribution so that you could know unequivocably that the evidence cannot be 'erased' -- even if the hundreds of millions of copies of the source worldwide were somehow 'cleansed'.
By continuing to not reveal the source, you are operating in bad faith. This is contrary to what your complaint against IBM mentions, as the clearest path to a remedy is the revelation of which pieces of code are offending. They will, of course, be subsequently removed from Linux.
Put yourself, for a moment, in everyone else's shoes. If you were an unscrupulous liar motivated solely by profit and willing to toe or cross the line of legality, what would stop you from doing what you are doing, even IF the only SysV code in Linux was the 'ancient unix' Sys3 code, or the BSD code that has been legally unencumbered by the courts? Thus far, the only evidence that has been made public _is_ non-infringing, and so I think the burden is upon you to demonstrate your case.
It's really simple. You claim copyright infringement; we disagree. At this point, you should produce the material you claim is infringed and any evidence that it is legally yours.
In the mean time, I want you to think about whether you want your relationship with Boies's law firm to be followed up by an intimate acquaintance with Milberg & Weiss.
|Mike Tonkin 09/09/03 10:55:06 AM EDT|
"It is easier for some in the Open Source community to fire off a “rant” than to sit across a negotiation table. "
Of course it is. Your table isn't big enough. Open Source is lose on pure Anarchy - no one person can or wants to represent all the people who give their free time to develop programs or snippets. Of ourse some of these people 'copy' algorithms - or do the same thing at work that they sat up until 3AM doing at home.
If there is infringement, fine, lets deal with it on a point-by-point basis, eliminate code where required. No, there is no malicious misuse of code, no-one wants to steal anything from SCO, and ertainly no-one makes any money out of it.
Mr McBride, you suffer from the American Disease - if you can't make money, sue someone.
|Turing_Machine 09/09/03 10:51:57 AM EDT|
I just recently called the licensing department at SCO to ask them about my exposure due to using Linux across our whole enterprise. We have developed our own applications, and have had an excellent success rate in uptime and reliability. One of the VPs here asked me to check to see if the SCO lawsuit could affect us. So I called.
I was incredibly disappointed. I was handled very poorly, and given much BS about how they were going to get an injunction to investigate ALL businesses and shut down any Linux servers without proper licensing, ala Microsoft's licensing enforcement actions.
After hearing what the representative had to say, I went to our legal counsel and explained what I knew, what I had heard, and what our options were. I was pleasantly surprised when they said that if ever our livelyhood was threatened by SCO, we would "actively and fully" defend our rights and the rights of the GNU/GPL, as many of the arguements listed here would provide substantial legal footing.
Maybe its not up to the IBM's and Novell's of the world to defend the Open Source platform. I imagine that SCO looks to the RIAA as an example of how to proceed. I say please try. We are not all college students eating ramen and listening to music we share. This company, while not large, would cost SCO thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars to prove their case. All that so they could charge us approximately $8,000.00. That's not a sustainable business model.
It is up to those who have benefited from Open Source to defend it now. We have saved many times that $8,000.00 in licensing and in ease of development, having the necessary source to modify for our specific needs. If just 5% of the companies who have saved from the introduction of Open Source into their company would let SCO know that they would actively defend the Open Source structure, SCO would have no recourse but to drop the issue.
This is not Linus's problem, or IBM. It is all of our problem. We shouldn't DDOS their site, if that is even a valid accusation. We shouldn't write nasty comments to a deluded executive. We should not stand as a moneyless community of coders and early-adopters.
Instead, let those who have benefited stand together. Our company has made that commitment. I am going to try to get a letter from the counsel stating this, and send it to SCO's legal department. If only a few of us do this, it makes us a target. If hundreds or thousands do this, it makes us stand strong as a community.
This, to me, is the least companies who have benefited from the endless work of the kernel developers can do for the community as a whole.
This is NOT a call to arms. In fact, I am asking for a very polite letter that will explain that we will defend ourselves only if necessary. That being said, we will stand strong, and we will see this to the end.
It is time to give a little corporate support for the community that has given so much of itself to provide a stable and superior product with no expectations. We, as corporate citizens, owe this much and more.
|matt joyce 09/09/03 10:51:09 AM EDT|
Well, last i checked the open source community didn't need a "business model"... we aren't a business. And if he considers extortion and theft a business, i think he needs to examine the rico act.
|tim hawkins 09/09/03 10:44:47 AM EDT|
he stated some things that need t be more closely looked at, however he never showed proof. he just made claims without any backup
|Roadfrisbee 09/09/03 10:42:52 AM EDT|
As usual, the statements he makes are false. The quote he mentions is at http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=6905469&sid=77714&tid=88
|bryon b 09/09/03 10:32:29 AM EDT|
"...prevented Web users from accessing our web site and doing business with SCO."
what business? what income do they really have besides "licensing"?
|Greg Donovan 09/09/03 10:30:42 AM EDT|
As a system administrator for the largest k-12 school district
|Jeff Lapchinsky 09/09/03 10:28:10 AM EDT|
While DDoS is not right and is probably not legal in most places so is SCO's marketing strategy using FUD as the driver not right and also probably not legal in most places. While this does not make the use of DDoS as a proper paradigm of displaying ones dissatisfaction it does show the community at large that "bird of a feather flock together". Sick minds tend to use the same sick methodologies to accomplish their agendas.
|Gregory Pierce 09/09/03 10:09:18 AM EDT|
After reading through much of what is out there I have some interesting comments to make. In some respects, SCO boy is correct. The Linux community should do some due diligence to ensure that code committed to the kernel is IP free to avoid these issues in the future.
The mountains of code which SCO speaks of as being theres however are somewhat ambiguous so outside of anything that SCO can prove as being genuinely 'SCO IP', they should be countersued by both Linux vendors and users as is appropriate and allowable under the law. I do not doubt that SCO has some evidence which supports their case - and no Linux supporter should blanketly dismiss what they have said because they haven't seen any evidence. Whether or not that evidence is as compelling as the SCO Group thinks - well that's up to the judges and justices of the judicial system.
Unfortunately Mr. SCO, some of the other things you've said are slanderous and border on libel. Unless you can prove that the person who performed a DDoS on you was an Open Source supporter that was a representative of the Open Source community - then I suggest you offer an apology to the Linux community for accusing them of something you cannot prove. In addition, even if it was someone who supports open source - your gripe is with them, not the remaining hundreds of thousands who took no action against you. You cannot argue from the specific to the general - to even suggest that is a high level of ignorance on your part.
Finally it is insulting the way you want people to respect a contract with SCO yet you want to shrug off the GPL license which you used to distribute Caldera for many years. As an owner of several copies of Caldera Linux I have clearly seen that you have distributed software under this license. If your legal counsel was stupid enough to let you attach a contractual agreement to software which you sold and distributed with your express consent - then you need to find a new legal group as you have been misled. You agreed to the terms of the GPL by attaching your software into a codebase which you clearly knew was GPL, which you sold knowing it was GPL, and which removed a great many of the rights (though not all) that you had to the IP you associated with UNIX, Linux, whatever. This is just like chess, this is a move that you cannot take back and you will have to live with it.
While I certainly understand that you want to protect your IP, the Linux community and Open Source communities have a right to protect theirs. Anything you've comitted to theirs is now open and that is the nature of the contractual agreement you accepted when you started putting Linux on the shelf. Now you have several choices - to work with the Linux community to get this resolved or take this to court at which time you may find yourself sued through your own admission of contract violation with respect to the GPL and shipping copies of Caldera.
All you have done is awaken a powerful enemy - and fill it with terrible resolve. If Microsoft fears the Linux community and Open Source and its several thousand times your size - perhaps you should reevaluate who your friends and enemies are as without a doubt even if Linux has to be totally engineered to not use anything resembling any of your IP - no self respecting user, administrator, or evaluator will consider using anything associated with your brand as you have threatened them in the past and acted in bad faith. Your brand is now dead - and 'geeks' are reknown for having long memories and vendettas.
|Noone Special 09/09/03 10:02:00 AM EDT|
While I dislike McBride and his ilk, the thing that disturbs me most is his approach to the world of software and business which is basically, 'it's about business only, any other approach is wrong and our team of lawyers will prove it'.
This attitue alone irks me. McBride's (and so many others) approach is that everything is 0wned and that businesses 0wning everything is ok. Of course he feels this way because he makes gobs of money as a big-time ceo, a totally respectable and wise position (of course, one only has to look at Enron, Worldcom, etc.. ceo's to realize that they're crooks like everyone else and many don't deserver the pay or respect they get).
McBride's model is not sustainable, just as chopping down all the forests on the earth is not. Companies are getting too big and too much power is held in the hands of the few. The OS community is not against making money, but when that is the only goal, and that goal also goes hand in hand with telling others that they may not do this or that - freedom in other words - then that is all one sees.
McBride is standing in front of a wave, holding a board in front of him thinking that when it crashes down, he will be protected. But alas, the thirst for freedom to create, use, and distribute computer code is something that cannot be stopped. Even if SCO wins and Linux was ruled illegal in the U.S., there's still the rest of the world to deal with and a lot of people have even more reasons - i.e., they can't afford anything else but free - to use, embrace, and contribute to GNU/Linux.
From this fundamental point - freedom - stems all of McBride's and SCO's ails. And this is what they can't stop and why, already, their ideas of ownership are antiquated and therefore, doomed.
|janunezc 09/09/03 10:01:55 AM EDT|
Why do you even think of invoicing corporations if your case has not been proved at court?
The only effects of your invoicing intents are FUD,anger at the Open Source Community and somehow SCO looks like a corporation that is strugguling for something to survive.
I respectfully invite you to show respect for the open source community throwgh retracting from your invoicing declarations and intentions until court gives you the right to invoice others for tho Open Source work. I personally think court will never give you such right.
If IBM loses the case they will have to pay you for the damages, but from that point to being able to charge linux customers for something that is public domain is simply far from being a reality.
You say that you are not against Linux distribuitors, but your FUD campaign is against them as well.
I will repeat it: Please respect the Open Source Community and stop your FUD campaign against Linux.
|Nikolas Karakostas 09/09/03 09:56:54 AM EDT|
After this story being published some SCO code is included in LinuxWorld and I am afraid that they will ask for license fees.
|Martin Adams 09/09/03 09:54:37 AM EDT|
Once I knew a software maker that had a good engineering product that was sued out of existence by a BIG company for infringement, there was NO infringement but the little company couldn't afford to defend itself, and just went out of business. Microsoft has, in my opinion, used this same model and, until Linux came along, was able to destroy anyone who got in their way. But trying this tactic on open source is really like firing a cannon at a swarm of gnats -- You make alot of noise but rarely hit anything. Don't go away mad, just go away!
|Coofer Cat 09/09/03 09:52:53 AM EDT|
Disregarding most of this, and skipping close the the bottom...
With respect to the "business model" surrounding Open Source, McBride is clearly wrong on this issue. People such as IBM include Open Source because it saves them having to develop that aspect of their product. Using Apache (for example) means you can save writing a web server and get on with botching an application server ;-)
IBM (and others) support the use of an embedded Apache. If it breaks, you tell them, they'll work with you to solve your issue.
Numerous other companies do this as well. Google, for example, use a Linux based machine for their search box. They support the full service that box delivers - if it fails to index and search, they fix it.
This is where the business model of Open Source is. Any company, large or small, can create, operate and deliver a product that incorporates O/S elements. Indeed, companies exist purely to service this kind of business model (eg. Redhat).
Open Source simply forces (large) vendors (SCO included) to innovate. Since anyone (large or small) can now put together a system to deliver "killer application X", everyone is forced to compete with them. If you've got "slightly naff product Y", then you either need to raise your game, or otherwise get out.
Those people (eg. SCO, MS etc) that claim that Open Source stifles innovation are those that fear it because it forces them to modify their own business models. Those that embrace it will find they are more able to innovate at the "top end" of their product without having to constantly maintain more "standard" areas, such as web servers and command shells.
"Top end" innovation is a general raising of the bar with respect to technology. This is the beginnings of more complex features, all yet to be conceived. For a more simple example, a J2EE application server cannot exist without a web server. To conceive of a J2EE server, you have to also consider the web server. If the web server part is already done, you can get on with imagining and designing the clever and innovative J2EE bits of the product.
Clearly, as time goes on, all vendors will conceive of more and more innovative and clever products, built on the foundations of those that came before. Since Open Source moves relatively quickly, this should allow vendors to create new products, sell them, and then move on quickly also.
Open Source is far from the end of sustainable business models. Indeed, it is the start of a broader market place with more highly innovative products and competition based on more than hum-drum products.
|mullmusik 09/09/03 09:40:39 AM EDT|
Hey McBride, Read this open response at /.
|Dan Summers 09/09/03 09:36:15 AM EDT|
I'm mildly amused by the way this whole shebang has been rattling on for months. So there's System V source in the Linux kernel? BIG HAIRY DEAL. Prove it.
It really is that simple. The legal systems in every civilised country work on the basis that a defendent is innocent until proven guilty. If SCO are prepared to provide their source code, either for open scrutiny (breathtakingly unlikely) or else to a third party arbiter respected by both sides, then comparisons can be made to find if the allegations are accurate. If they are not willing to allow this comparison, this would seem to pull the rug out from under their case, as they cannot continue with such a rampant lack of evidence.
If such arbitration takes place and there is no copied code, all rejoice and SCO / OSS go back to staring each other down and making snide remarks at each other (Barring libel cases and other justifiably angry behaviour). If the code does exist, it gets removed and replaced with a free (in all senses) version in the next kernel patch. Then, all rejoice again.
Surely it isn't that difficult. Lets get this out the way and carry on with life in, you know, the REAL world...
|megalomaniac 09/09/03 09:16:06 AM EDT|
Dear mr. McBride:
Is't it already time to "prove" the BS, that you are saying?!?
|Ben 09/09/03 09:07:06 AM EDT|
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Public source code for the operating system is the most important development of our time. This is a fight for freedom from exploitation and monopoly. These are birth pains.
|Greg Wooledge 09/09/03 09:07:06 AM EDT|
My, my... you can practically see the puppet string attached to McBride's jaw, can't you?
Microsoft has already made it clear that they're fighting not just against Linux, but against the entire Free Software and Open Source communities (or paradigms, if you prefer). McBride is just a patsy for Microsoft here. He's been sent on a suicide mission, to try to do as much "damage" to the FS/OS communities as possible. SCO isn't going to survive this -- but that's not a big deal, because they were already dead to begin with. The real SCO, who made SCO Unix out of Microsoft's Xenix, went belly-up years ago and became Tarantella. This new SCO (formerly Caldera) is just a facade.
Read between the lines -- god knows there are enough of them here. (I couldn't even finish the whole letter due to the rising nausea it invoked.) The entire point of this exercise is to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) within the minds of corporate America. Why? Because corporate America buys Microsoft's products. Microsoft needs that income to survive, and if companies stop buying Microsoft and start using Free Software instead, Microsoft dies.
Look again at the rhetoric that McBride is spewing out here.
"... this issue goes to the very heart of whether Open Source can be trusted as a development model for enterprise computing software" -- do you really think we, the Free Software and Open Source communities, care about your business enterprise? We write, maintain, document, and support Free Software -- that's all. If you want to use our software, go ahead. You're Free to do so, just like all the rest of us. If you don't want to use it, that's fine too.
"the community now has the opportunity to develop software for mainstream American corporations and other global companies." There are very few hackers who work on software with a mostly-commercial audience (accounting software and the like). It's just not very much fun to do. But if you want to write a payroll package or a billing system for GNU/Linux, go ahead! That's what Free Software means -- you're Free to use it in your business. You can even put your software under an End User License Agreement, and restrict distribution, and charge money for it. As long as you don't use any of our code in your proprietary software, everything will be fine.
"... if the Open Source community wants its products to be accepted by enterprise companies ..." Guess what? We aren't selling a product here. If you use our software, we get nothing. If you don't use it, we lose nothing. We really don't want or need your "acceptance". But don't worry, we'll accept you. We might use harsh language at times, and we might laugh at you if you say something unusually dumb, but we don't bite. And if you use our software for a while, you might learn something. You might even have a little bit of fun!
"And it is these customers who will determine the ultimate fate of Open Source..." What customers? We don't have any customers, because we are not a business! We have no "product". We don't sell anything. We were here before you were, and we'll be here after you're gone. Our "fate" is in our own hands, not yours.
Those are just a few randomly selected tidbits. Read the whole thing (or as much as you can stomach) again looking for the bias, and you'll see it shining through. He's talking to know-nothing managers at corporations -- current or potential Microsoft customers -- and trying to make them see "Open Source" as an untrustworthy villain. The only reason anyone would do that is if they're trying to get you to buy something. The only person who's selling something to that audience is Microsoft.
If you happen to be one of those "pointy-haired boss" type of managers, then you're probably thinking that maybe McBride's right. "Look at this Greg Wooledge guy, he's really mean and nasty! He says bad things about me!" Well, gee shucks, I'm sorry if you're not ready to use Free Software yet. Maybe after Microsoft has bent you over and reamed you a few more times, you'll start to think about this issue from a different perspective. Or maybe not. If and when you're ready, though, Free Software will still be here for you.
SYS-CON Events announced today that IoT Now has been named “Media Sponsor” of SYS-CON's 20th International Cloud Expo, which will take place on June 6–8, 2017, at the Javits Center in New York City, NY. IoT Now explores the evolving opportunities and challenges facing CSPs, and it passes on some lessons learned from those who have taken the first steps in next-gen IoT services.
Mar. 26, 2017 03:30 AM EDT Reads: 3,834
SYS-CON Events announced today that Interoute, owner-operator of one of Europe's largest networks and a global cloud services platform, has been named “Bronze Sponsor” of SYS-CON's 20th Cloud Expo, which will take place on June 6-8, 2017 at the Javits Center in New York, New York. Interoute is the owner-operator of one of Europe's largest networks and a global cloud services platform which encompasses 12 data centers, 14 virtual data centers and 31 colocation centers, with connections to 195 add...
Mar. 26, 2017 03:15 AM EDT Reads: 1,020
SYS-CON Events announced today that MobiDev, a client-oriented software development company, will exhibit at SYS-CON's 20th International Cloud Expo®, which will take place June 6-8, 2017, at the Javits Center in New York City, NY, and the 21st International Cloud Expo®, which will take place October 31-November 2, 2017, at the Santa Clara Convention Center in Santa Clara, CA. MobiDev is a software company that develops and delivers turn-key mobile apps, websites, web services, and complex softw...
Mar. 26, 2017 01:45 AM EDT Reads: 3,718
DevOps is often described as a combination of technology and culture. Without both, DevOps isn't complete. However, applying the culture to outdated technology is a recipe for disaster; as response times grow and connections between teams are delayed by technology, the culture will die. A Nutanix Enterprise Cloud has many benefits that provide the needed base for a true DevOps paradigm.
Mar. 26, 2017 12:30 AM EDT Reads: 1,892
What sort of WebRTC based applications can we expect to see over the next year and beyond? One way to predict development trends is to see what sorts of applications startups are building. In his session at @ThingsExpo, Arin Sime, founder of WebRTC.ventures, will discuss the current and likely future trends in WebRTC application development based on real requests for custom applications from real customers, as well as other public sources of information,
Mar. 26, 2017 12:15 AM EDT Reads: 750
Keeping pace with advancements in software delivery processes and tooling is taxing even for the most proficient organizations. Point tools, platforms, open source and the increasing adoption of private and public cloud services requires strong engineering rigor - all in the face of developer demands to use the tools of choice. As Agile has settled in as a mainstream practice, now DevOps has emerged as the next wave to improve software delivery speed and output. To make DevOps work, organization...
Mar. 26, 2017 12:00 AM EDT Reads: 1,737
As businesses adopt functionalities in cloud computing, it’s imperative that IT operations consistently ensure cloud systems work correctly – all of the time, and to their best capabilities. In his session at @BigDataExpo, Bernd Harzog, CEO and founder of OpsDataStore, will present an industry answer to the common question, “Are you running IT operations as efficiently and as cost effectively as you need to?” He will expound on the industry issues he frequently came up against as an analyst, and...
Mar. 26, 2017 12:00 AM EDT Reads: 4,131
My team embarked on building a data lake for our sales and marketing data to better understand customer journeys. This required building a hybrid data pipeline to connect our cloud CRM with the new Hadoop Data Lake. One challenge is that IT was not in a position to provide support until we proved value and marketing did not have the experience, so we embarked on the journey ourselves within the product marketing team for our line of business within Progress. In his session at @BigDataExpo, Sum...
Mar. 25, 2017 08:45 PM EDT Reads: 2,797
Apache Hadoop is emerging as a distributed platform for handling large and fast incoming streams of data. Predictive maintenance, supply chain optimization, and Internet-of-Things analysis are examples where Hadoop provides the scalable storage, processing, and analytics platform to gain meaningful insights from granular data that is typically only valuable from a large-scale, aggregate view. One architecture useful for capturing and analyzing streaming data is the Lambda Architecture, represent...
Mar. 25, 2017 08:45 PM EDT Reads: 6,021
Things are changing so quickly in IoT that it would take a wizard to predict which ecosystem will gain the most traction. In order for IoT to reach its potential, smart devices must be able to work together. Today, there are a slew of interoperability standards being promoted by big names to make this happen: HomeKit, Brillo and Alljoyn. In his session at @ThingsExpo, Adam Justice, vice president and general manager of Grid Connect, will review what happens when smart devices don’t work togethe...
Mar. 25, 2017 06:15 PM EDT Reads: 2,575
SYS-CON Events announced today that Ocean9will exhibit at SYS-CON's 20th International Cloud Expo®, which will take place on June 6-8, 2017, at the Javits Center in New York City, NY. Ocean9 provides cloud services for Backup, Disaster Recovery (DRaaS) and instant Innovation, and redefines enterprise infrastructure with its cloud native subscription offerings for mission critical SAP workloads.
Mar. 25, 2017 05:15 PM EDT Reads: 1,961
In his session at @ThingsExpo, Eric Lachapelle, CEO of the Professional Evaluation and Certification Board (PECB), will provide an overview of various initiatives to certifiy the security of connected devices and future trends in ensuring public trust of IoT. Eric Lachapelle is the Chief Executive Officer of the Professional Evaluation and Certification Board (PECB), an international certification body. His role is to help companies and individuals to achieve professional, accredited and worldw...
Mar. 25, 2017 04:00 PM EDT Reads: 556
SYS-CON Events announced today that Technologic Systems Inc., an embedded systems solutions company, will exhibit at SYS-CON's @ThingsExpo, which will take place on June 6-8, 2017, at the Javits Center in New York City, NY. Technologic Systems is an embedded systems company with headquarters in Fountain Hills, Arizona. They have been in business for 32 years, helping more than 8,000 OEM customers and building over a hundred COTS products that have never been discontinued. Technologic Systems’ pr...
Mar. 25, 2017 01:45 PM EDT Reads: 3,312
SYS-CON Events announced today that CA Technologies has been named “Platinum Sponsor” of SYS-CON's 20th International Cloud Expo®, which will take place on June 6-8, 2017, at the Javits Center in New York City, NY, and the 21st International Cloud Expo®, which will take place October 31-November 2, 2017, at the Santa Clara Convention Center in Santa Clara, CA. CA Technologies helps customers succeed in a future where every business – from apparel to energy – is being rewritten by software. From ...
Mar. 25, 2017 01:30 PM EDT Reads: 1,749
The taxi industry never saw Uber coming. Startups are a threat to incumbents like never before, and a major enabler for startups is that they are instantly “cloud ready.” If innovation moves at the pace of IT, then your company is in trouble. Why? Because your data center will not keep up with frenetic pace AWS, Microsoft and Google are rolling out new capabilities In his session at 20th Cloud Expo, Don Browning, VP of Cloud Architecture at Turner, will posit that disruption is inevitable for c...
Mar. 25, 2017 01:15 PM EDT Reads: 2,057
SYS-CON Events announced today that Cloudistics, an on-premises cloud computing company, has been named “Bronze Sponsor” of SYS-CON's 20th International Cloud Expo®, which will take place on June 6-8, 2017, at the Javits Center in New York City, NY. Cloudistics delivers a complete public cloud experience with composable on-premises infrastructures to medium and large enterprises. Its software-defined technology natively converges network, storage, compute, virtualization, and management into a ...
Mar. 25, 2017 12:45 PM EDT Reads: 1,910
SYS-CON Events announced today that Loom Systems will exhibit at SYS-CON's 20th International Cloud Expo®, which will take place on June 6-8, 2017, at the Javits Center in New York City, NY. Founded in 2015, Loom Systems delivers an advanced AI solution to predict and prevent problems in the digital business. Loom stands alone in the industry as an AI analysis platform requiring no prior math knowledge from operators, leveraging the existing staff to succeed in the digital era. With offices in S...
Mar. 25, 2017 12:30 PM EDT Reads: 1,206
The explosion of new web/cloud/IoT-based applications and the data they generate are transforming our world right before our eyes. In this rush to adopt these new technologies, organizations are often ignoring fundamental questions concerning who owns the data and failing to ask for permission to conduct invasive surveillance of their customers. Organizations that are not transparent about how their systems gather data telemetry without offering shared data ownership risk product rejection, regu...
Mar. 25, 2017 12:30 PM EDT Reads: 5,071
SYS-CON Events announced today that CrowdReviews.com has been named “Media Sponsor” of SYS-CON's 20th International Cloud Expo, which will take place on June 6–8, 2017, at the Javits Center in New York City, NY. CrowdReviews.com is a transparent online platform for determining which products and services are the best based on the opinion of the crowd. The crowd consists of Internet users that have experienced products and services first-hand and have an interest in letting other potential buyers...
Mar. 25, 2017 11:00 AM EDT Reads: 3,571
SYS-CON Events announced today that T-Mobile will exhibit at SYS-CON's 20th International Cloud Expo®, which will take place on June 6-8, 2017, at the Javits Center in New York City, NY. As America's Un-carrier, T-Mobile US, Inc., is redefining the way consumers and businesses buy wireless services through leading product and service innovation. The Company's advanced nationwide 4G LTE network delivers outstanding wireless experiences to 67.4 million customers who are unwilling to compromise on ...
Mar. 25, 2017 10:45 AM EDT Reads: 2,123