[svlug] SCO hints at harassing Linus himself
raffi at linwin.com
Thu May 29 22:57:42 PDT 2003
On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 06:22:12PM -0700, Cameron Palmer wrote:
> Demonizing SCO only makes us look bad. It adds validity to the claims
> of companies that see Open Source and Linux as a hostile business
> unfriendly group.
World is simple these days, it's either they are with us or against us.
There is nothing in anti-SCO movement that can make us look bad. Who
cares about "companies that see Open Source and Linux as a hostile
business". They are loosers in the first place and their number is
> We will have a better idea how this will play out on or around June 13th
> when IBM makes its move. Hopefully IBM will be decisive, as in Checkmate.
Funny, it's IBM that created "evil empire" and it's invisible dark deals
that is destroying the competition any way possible. Is IBM going to
redeem itself and correct the original problem with their legal team? We
hope so but that's not the only option. Any disputable code can easily
be replaced with different one like BSD was.
It's hard to understand why SCO is attacking Linux? Technicaly it's
GNU/Linux which means that the majority of code, the one that's very
likely in dispute, is not in the kernel at all. Any word from RMS?
> On Thu, 29 May 2003, josh wrote:
> > Don Marti wrote:
> > >> begin William R Ward quotation of Thu, May 29, 2003 at 04:19:36PM -0700:
> > >>
> > >>>>Some SCO employees are, I'm sure, in the process of changing jobs
> > >>>>right now. Don't create a blacklist that the targets' future
> > >>>>actions don't affect. Behavior modification works; revenge doesn't.
> > >>>
> > >>>Please read again: Bryan was suggesting a blacklist of EXECUTIVES not
> > >>>employees. Personally I'm undecided as to whether it's a good idea or
> > >>>not, much less a feasible one.
> > >>
> > > You can't divide a company into people with power and people without.
> > Sure you can. Watch, I'm gonna do it right now:
> > "The engineers at SCO had zero power to stop these shenannigans before
> > they started because they were almost certainly not consulted on the
> > matter. Further, they likely have very little power to stop them now,
> > if there are indeed any lawsuit plans in the works."
> > > That insults and dehumanizes everyone you don't call an "executive".
> > Maybe so.
> > > Everyone has a moral obligation not to participate in an evil
> > > organization.
> > You'll excuse me if I can't really bring myself to use the word 'evil'
> > in association with this. Stupid, uncalled for, rude, unfounded - these
> > are words I can agree with. Evil? Oh, come on.
> > - josh
More information about the svlug