MozillaQuest Magazine: Regarding binfmt_coff, abi-util, lcall7,
abi-svr4, abi-sco; are any of these modules SCO IP?
Blake Stowell: No, none of the code in the Linux ABI modules contains
SCO IP. This code is under the GPL and it re-implements publicly
documented interfaces. We do not have an issue with the Linux ABI
modules.
What are SCO claiming now: that the ABI code in Linux violates SCO's IP.
Once again, I ask the fence-sitters: at what point do you actively
DISBELIEVE SCO's claims? Surely any doubt that SCO's management are
lying has to have gone now?
>Once again, I ask the fence-sitters: at what point do you actively
>DISBELIEVE SCO's claims? Surely any doubt that SCO's management are
>lying has to have gone now?
Joe, I'd appreciate it if you'd go back to the thread I started, "FyRE,
I'm curious about you, too" and make a reply regarding yourself to the
questions I asked him. I really would like to know where you're coming
from and what your goal is in posting here.
I'm beginning to wonder whether you have a legitimate, realistic agenda or
if you're just a plain old troll. I'm having to force myself to refrain
from doing long-distance psychoanalysis.
I believe that any thinking person who has followed this whole fiaSCO (bad
pun intended) understands that SCO's management has repeatedly lied
through their teeth. Does that mean that we're all going to paint Darl
McBride, Chris Sontag and Blake Scowell as the Trinity of Evil, the
Three-in-One Antichrist, the combined Emperor, Darth Vader and the Death
Star; with the result that every participant on this newsgroup is going to
descend on their homes with swords, torches and material with which to
burn them at the stake? That's an unreasonable assumption, to put it
mildly.
Plus, if I had the slightest allegiance to SCO, your potshots (including
one on Christmas Eve--Good Grief!) would tend to drive me to greater
allegiance in reaction and because I didn't want to be associated people
holding the attitude you project. NOTE: I said ATTITUDE, not substance,
facts, opinions or anything else. ATTITUDE.
For myself, I look forward to the day when SCO is (at least figuratively)
a Caldera (a smoking crater left after a volcanic explosion). And the
wheels of justice *are* turning--slowly, but they're turning. And I
probably agree with most or all of the things you say. But I have no
desire to be associated in anyone's mind with the Three Amigos of Brian,
FyRE and you. Not as long as potshots, personal attacks and name-calling
are part of your M.O. I particularly have noted the abuse and derision
that has been heaped on Tony Lawrence by the Three Amigos. I've noted
where he stands, and you and he are really not that far apart. But it
seems that he's on the Hit List because he refuses to become equally rabid
about the issues and because he seems to want to approach things fairly
and even-handedly. He's got an open mind, and it doesn't take long for an
open mind to be convinced, especially considering the lunacy that comes
out of Lindon, Utah. But he's not going to be pushed.
Have you considered that by your standards, *IBM* and *Red Hat* and *Linus
Torvalds*, among others, are the enemy? They're not coming out with
cannons blazing at SCO. They're patiently feeding SCO plenty of rope that
SCO's execs will eventually hang themselves with. They're playing it cool.
They *are" cool. You could learn a lot from them.
SCO's execs can be jerks all the day long (and as far as I'm concerned,
they do and do it well), but that doesn't mean anyone else has to be.
Think about it. I dare you. Any response you make will make it plainly
evident whether you have.
--
I'm Mike--James' Dad, hence "JamesDad". I use this nym in memory of my
son James Webb (1992-2000) who died fighting leukemia. He was a greater
man at 8 than some ever become. May his life, battle and story never be
forgotten! More info at <http://www.themiraclekids.com/mem-james.htm>.
*** Remove ARROGANCE Before Replying ***
>Have you considered that by your standards, *IBM* and *Red Hat* and *Linus
>Torvalds*, among others, are the enemy? They're not coming out with
>cannons blazing at SCO. They're patiently feeding SCO plenty of rope that
>SCO's execs will eventually hang themselves with. They're playing it cool.
>They *are" cool. You could learn a lot from them.
"Torvalds hits back at SCO" - http://www.vnunet.com/News/1151723
"Redhat sues SCO" - http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10849
Anyone who thinks IBM are sitting on their hands waiting for SCO to
hang themselves is more than a little naive. In their recent reponses
to SCO's continuing delay tactics, the wording in their documents has
been pretty harsh, bordering on sarcastic.
Maybe I'll have to start posting more of the latest news here so you
don't miss so much, JD.
--
FyRE < "War: The way Americans learn geography" >
>
> Joe, I'd appreciate it if you'd go back to the thread I started, "FyRE,
> I'm curious about you, too" and make a reply regarding yourself to the
> questions I asked him. I really would like to know where you're coming
> from and what your goal is in posting here.
>
One of the nice things aobut Usenet is that there is no force compelling
people to reply. I choose not to reply to your questions about my
motives and goals.
I will remark that I am interested by what I percieve as an
inconsistency in your postings. But, whatever: that's your business.
>Once again, I ask the fence-sitters: at what point do you actively
>DISBELIEVE SCO's claims? Surely any doubt that SCO's management are
>lying has to have gone now?
What difference does that make?
You know, you seem to see this as some war between us
and you. We have to join your bitter hatred of all things SCO,
or we're the enemy.
Here's what I "believe": SCO management looks like a bunch of
incompetent boobs at this point. That could change tomorrow,
or they could smear more egg on their faces. Either way, it
doesn't really matter, because what matters is what happens
with this lawsuit, and what REALLY matters is how it all
affects Linux and open source going forward.
As to this imaginary fence you have put up, it doesn't
exist. It's impossible for me to have any opinion about
the validity of SCO's IP claims or about the likelihood
of any particular legal strategy being successful. That's
not a fence: that's simple in the dark ignorance.
You want me to "take sides". Against what? Against who
wins this stupid lawsuit? If you want me to say who I
WANT to win, that's easy: I want Linux to win. But that's
desire, Joe. Just a personal desire, and no matter how
many people may share it, no matter how much nonsense they
babble about the GPL, pump and dump schemes, etc. it
doesn't matter: reality will be whatever it is. And
by reality I do NOT mean any reality of who owns what code,
but rather the political reality of who wins the suit, and
(again much more importantly) what the longer term political
effect is. That's the important reality, and if I were
just half smart enough to know what that will be, I'd
be rich a million times over.
To me, you sound like a rabid baseball fan ranting on and
on about the other team and demanding that I take a side
on who will win the pennant. I know nothing about baseball,
and more importantly, I don't care. The analogy is imperfect
because I do care about the larger issues that surround this
issue, but I'm neither a SCO fan or a SCO hater: I'm
just a guy who makes some of his living from the products
they sell.
From the strict and narrow viewpoint (forgetting
the larger picture of what I think is right for the
world), I don't care at all whether SCO wins or loses: all
I care about is my clients. And that is driven primarily by
a selfish desire to survive. Don't twist that out of context:
I have moral considerations in those relationships, but the
origin of those relationships is financial.
In the larger view, I do believe that Open Source and Linux
are the right path for the world, and I don't like those
who are trying to prevent that. However, I recognize that this
is a political opinion, and that there are arguments to be
made for proprietary, patented, copyrighted, locked up
commercial software.
There's no fence.
--
to...@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html
First, I want to make it clear that I'm not going to get into the kind of
"I didn't say that--you've misunderstood me" kind of roundabout that I've
seen played on Tony all too often. I *will* clarify what I meant, trusting
that you understand the English language and that you'll ask questions if
you don't get it.
I'm quite well-informed on the issues and the events that are going on.
You might even be impressed at the amount of reading I've done and
continue to do. Just on a daily basis, I at least check the eWeek site
(Steven Vaughan-Nichols stays on the ball--have you read his latest op-ed
piece about SCO, written in Dr. Seuss style? It's a riot!*), Groklaw
(sometimes several times a day) and here.
* "The Little SCO That Cried Wolf"
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1420046,00.asp
I have had no intention of implying that IBM, RH and Linus are just lying
down and taking it. Far from it. Rather, IBM and RH are cooly fighting the
battle where it counts--with the facts involved in the legal challenges.
RH is working so cooly that someone had to ask on Groklaw the other day
what was happening in that case. As for Linus, even when he's countering
SCO's FUD, he does it with cool, even humble refutation with facts,
concentrating (IMHO) on the issues that are most important. "Torvalds hits
back" is an editor's wording, not Linus'. He may be fuming in private (and
probably is), but isn't mounting a counter-attack of the nature of SCO's
effort to try the case in the court of public opinion.
The point I'm trying to make is that you don't have to sling your own ****
just because someone else is. Steven's article makes the point that SCO's
FUD campaign has gone so far as to discredit them even when they're right
(like the latest DDoS attack). For a full day on Groklaw, there was very
little sympathy for SCO or even belief that such an attack was occurring,
backed up by observations from an Australian defense security expert. It
was only the next day, when more info came to light (not from SCO, but
from CAIDA--an independent third-party source) that PJ put up an article
correcting the issue.
People who use this newsgroup as a forum for put-downs, personal attacks.
sarcastically written news-information posts, and taking out their
frustrations on people who aren't quite as riled up about the issues as
they are can lose their credibility just as thoroughly. Sure, someone can
post about anything they want to here that's SCO-related and be on-topic,
but if the goal is to persuade, one must be persuasable so that one's
potential audience is willing to listen.
Neither IBM nor RH are mounting counter-attacks in the press either.
They're speaking where it counts--in the courts. Yes, IBM's getting
testier in their legal documents, but the words are being spoken in *legal
documents*, not press releases or interviews. (I read The Darl's latest
interview in CRN magazine, and was about to barf.)
There's a saying about "religious fanatics" that contains a principle that
I think can apply equally well to overzealous Linux advocates or those
otherwise trying to counter-FUD SCO: "A fanatic is not someone with too
much religion, it's someone with too little sense."
'nuff said for now.
Which I find sad; Brian and FyRE have at least been open about where they
come from, and even when I disagree with them either on form or substance,
can respect them somewhat because of that knowledge. In their reply posts,
they were able to stand back and speak dispassionately at least to a
degree, so I can at least disagree with them respectfully.
In your case I guess I'm stuck with the conclusions I'm drawing from your
posts; you seem to be little more than a troll whose main purpose is to
harass people who work (even partially) with SCO's software. You don't
seem not really interested in persuading; your attitude negates the
persuasiveness of your information. You don't even appear willing to
accept "fellow travelers" who largely agree with you as allies--either one
has their sword and torch ready or they're part of the Evil Empire.
There are also mental health issues that could account for your approach,
but that's between you, those around you and your doctor. IANAP, and doubt
that I'd be accurate, even though I understand much about mental health.
Plus, my greatest suspicions of what brain disorders you may be plagued
with include denial of the problem as a symptom; so I won't try.
>I will remark that I am interested by what I percieve as an
>inconsistency in your postings. But, whatever: that's your business.
I wouldn't be surprised at all to find that some/many/all of my
postings/arguments are flawed; while my abilities to learn and retain
facts are rather formidable, my abilities in argument/debate are not so
great and I frequently don't present my arguments well. I'm also willing
to learn from others, and sometimes what I say is a result of my status in
working through some new information or perspective. Plus, I'm a fallible
human being like everybody else. I won't hit the nail on the head right
every time, but I do try.
>In the larger view, I do believe that Open Source and Linux
>are the right path for the world, and I don't like those
>who are trying to prevent that. However, I recognize that this
>is a political opinion, and that there are arguments to be
>made for proprietary, patented, copyrighted, locked up
>commercial software.
Tony, there *are* some of us who do understand what you're talking about
and aren't looking to use your choice of words to harass you and provoke
needless argument.
If I may say so, the epithet "Tony the Thick" used recently against you is
one you can turn around and wear with pride. Not thick-headed, like you're
a dummy, but thick-skinned, as in you get hit with all kinds of crap here.
Yet you maintain your balance and your convictions and continue to
contribute to the group in a healthy way. I admire you for that.
Here's to Tony the Thick(-skinned)!
>In your case I guess I'm stuck with the conclusions I'm drawing from your
>posts; you seem to be little more than a troll whose main purpose is to
>harass people who work (even partially) with SCO's software.
So, if you think I'm a troll, then kill file me! Isn't the best way to
deal with trolls to ignore them?
>There are also mental health issues that could account for your approach,
And you have the gall to accuse me of taking "pot-shots"? That's a
really cheap shot from you.
>>In the larger view, I do believe that Open Source and Linux
>>are the right path for the world, and I don't like those
>>who are trying to prevent that. However, I recognize that this
>>is a political opinion, and that there are arguments to be
>>made for proprietary, patented, copyrighted, locked up
>>commercial software.
>Tony, there *are* some of us who do understand what you're talking about
>and aren't looking to use your choice of words to harass you and provoke
>needless argument.
>If I may say so, the epithet "Tony the Thick" used recently against you is
>one you can turn around and wear with pride. Not thick-headed, like you're
>a dummy, but thick-skinned, as in you get hit with all kinds of crap here.
>Yet you maintain your balance and your convictions and continue to
>contribute to the group in a healthy way. I admire you for that.
Well, thank you, but my hide is thick. I'll explain some
of why at the end so that those with little interest can ignore
the off-topic parts.
Beyond that, I understand the anger and frustration that these
people feel. I wish they'd rise above it and see the larger picture,
but I do have empathy for them. They perceive, quite rightly,
that SCO is threatening something very important. The larger
picture, of course, is that there are tremendous political
currents surrounding all of this, but it's hardly atypical
for someone whose home is threatened by a forest fire not to
want to discuss the ecological implications of controlled
burning.
If it gives them some relief to have a devil to castigate, that's
OK. They read what I say to search for opportunities to slander,
but perhaps now and then the words actually sink in.
Still, the dialog of open source vs. proprietary, and the related issues
of patents, copyrights and all that, is important. This little SCO
silliness might get a footnote someday when the history of all this is
written, but it won't be a watershed event. Let's hope that the footnote
describes this as a small bump on the road to openness rather than the
first indication of overwhelming success for the proprietary side.
*** off topic part
When I entered school, I was considered to be slightly
retarded, and was put in a special class of other cast-offs. Some
of them truly were stupid, but most probably just were dyslexic or
had other learning disabilites. My problem was that I was very
near sighted; actually legally blind without corrective lenses.
Later, they found that, corrected it, gave me IQ tests, and moved
me to a "gifted and talented" program run by a woman named Celista Dow.
Many years later, my youngest daughter was in the very last of Celista's
classes. Interesting, I thought.
Anyway, my point is that I'm probably one of the few people in the
world who have been taunted both for being stupid AND for being smart :-)
That made me pretty tough, both mentally and physically. More
importantly it taught me that other people's judgments of
worth are unimportant, and that many of societies dregs are
actually interesting people well worth knowing. For the most
part, I liked the "retards" better than I liked the geniuses..
>Plus, if I had the slightest allegiance to SCO,
Has ANYONE here said anything about allegiance to SCO? I don't
think so; in fact, I've pointed out that my interest in SCO was
simply because it was a good business opportunity: oodles of
customers abandoned by their original resellers and ignored
as unimportant by SCO themselves. I suspect that most of
the SCO consultants/resellers here have similar feelings or
experiences. Unlike the rabid Linux fans, this is just business
to most of us.
But in spite of the absence of any SCO team spirit, the Linzeals
still try to convince themselves that we MUST be "pro sco", must
have some emotional involvement with the OS or the company.
And that's probably partly responsible for their frustration and
anger. They want to pick a fight about whose OS can piss farther,
and none of us particularly care.
>On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 19:06:06 GMT, JamesDad
><mewnewsA...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 06:14:55 GMT, Joe Dunning <j...@blahblah.invalid>
>>wrote:
>
>>In your case I guess I'm stuck with the conclusions I'm drawing from your
>>posts; you seem to be little more than a troll whose main purpose is to
>>harass people who work (even partially) with SCO's software.
>
>So, if you think I'm a troll, then kill file me! Isn't the best way to
>deal with trolls to ignore them?
>
>>There are also mental health issues that could account for your approach,
>
>And you have the gall to accuse me of taking "pot-shots"? That's a
>really cheap shot from you.
I see the hook, but I ain't bitin'.
>Blake Stowell: No, none of the code in the Linux ABI modules contains
>SCO IP. This code is under the GPL and it re-implements publicly
>documented interfaces. We do not have an issue with the Linux ABI
>modules.
>What are SCO claiming now: that the ABI code in Linux violates SCO's IP.
The term abi is a very general one.
SCO is now discussing about the "general" "unix" abi code in linux
(looking at the headers files, they talk about signals, interfaces,
....).
This has nothing to do with linux-abi. linux-abi has never been part of
any linux kernel (it's a separate patch).
Maybe linux-abi was a unfortunate/too general name for that patch.