[NCLUG] SCO Open Letter to the Open Source Community

[Eric Schwartz]

> Read:
>
> 	http://www.sco.com/company/openletter/

It's an interesting read.  After a bit of whining about a DDOS, McBride 
quotes Perens as admitting that some SGI code had gotten into Linux 
through "an error in the Linux developer's process".  There are three 
misleading points here:

1) The phrase "Linux developer's process" does not refer to a generic 
process for Linux developers, but to the process used by that specific 
developer (an SGI employee).  McBride's clear implication that there 
are structural problems here is not supported by the quote.
2) Perens also stated that that the Linux community had the legal right 
to use the code.
3) That code was removed from Linux, supporting the community's stance 
that if they will only tell us where the violations are, we will code 
around them.

McBride then goes on to say that code should be checked to ensure the 
contributors have the right to contribute it.  This is done now, and 
has been for some time (more diligent readers of LKML will be able to 
support this better than I).

As for his basic principles of IP:

1) Nobody in the open source community that I have seen has endorsed 
'fair use' as a method of using someone else's IP.  Debian, in fact, 
will not accept software that has explicit anti-commercial-use 
licenses, and its Free Software Guidelines form the basis of the Open 
Source Initiative's Open Source Definition.

2) Nobody has suggested that removing copyright attributions is a good 
thing at all, nor that it should be done.  If SCO has evidence of this, 
they should inform the projects they believe are in violation as soon 
as possible, so that the error can be corrected.

3) Nor is anyone suggesting that Linux "owns" copyright that has not 
been expressly assigned to it.  We *are* however saying that we're 
using it under a license-- the GPL-- that allows us to copy and alter 
it without cost.  That is a crucial distinction in this case.

4) See above.  Nobody's talking about transferring ownership of 
copyright, we're saying we have a valid license to use and alter the 
copyrighted materials.

5) This is so far the only substantive point.  SCO is saying that 
copyrighted works can only be used under an appropriate license-- no 
argument there.  They believe that IBM has violated their license-- 
well, that's for the courts to decide.  That they believe their 
evidence is compelling does not make it so, as so far every instance 
they've brought up has been disproved, but I'm willing to wait for a 
legal ruling.

McBride closes with a dire assessment of the state of Open Source 
software, as a business, and an appeal to the Open Source community to 
"monetize software technology".  I'm at a loss as to what this means, 
other than he would like to figure out a way to sell Open Source 
software, and can't, due to that nasty GPL thing.

> and for some balance to the spiteful miss-information propaganda by the
> Open Source community consider:
>
> 	http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/31479.html

That article is just plain silly.  It ignores several points of fact, 
makes a patently false analogy to copying Harry Potter, and contains a 
number of unsubstantiated allegations that seem to be almost designed 
to inflame the Open Source community.  Its main virtue, I fear, is that 
it has had the salutary effect of increasing traffic to the author's 
website, which appears to be its primary goal.

-=Eric