On Sat, 2005-05-21 at 21:28 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> The SCO that exists currently ... the one that is suing IBM right now,
> in the lawsuit as it currently exists, is an enemy to all Linux, IBM and
> Red Hat customers.
You need to separate the SCO v. IBM aspects from the SCO "smokescreen."
The original March 2003 filing was not about Linux, but a "contract
dispute." Not my words, but those of Linus, ESR and many others.
But because people took rabid offense to the wording in that lawsuit,
wording that was required to make the case on the "Non-Compete" clause
in Monterey, the media took it and made it about Linux. So it didn't
surprise me when IBM didn't settle that SCO expanded it in May 2003 to
include the whole "smokescreen" of Linux IP.
Let the SCO lawsuits against its contractual partners like IBM,
Autozone, Chrysler and the like go. Don't bring them on this list, and
just act like SCO doesn't exist. Don't add to the rabid environment
that has people believing SCO v. IBM is SCO v. Linux.
It never was and every motion and every item SCO tries to introduce that
isn't about Monterey, including the Non-Compete, is being shot down. At
the same time, SCO is getting motions granted on the Monterey and Non-
Compete considerations. So if SCO does finally win on a few counts,
it's important that people know they had _nothing_ to do with IP in
Linux, and _everything_ to do with IBM's contractual obligations with
SCO.
Again, don't make IBM's fight with SCO our fight.
> That is absolutely clear. I would call them a bad company. Were they
> always that, no. Did IBM screw some people in the past, yes.
IBM screwed a very _good_, pro-GPL Linux partner in Caldera-SCO. Why?
Because it could. It saw them as a competitor with a similar strategy.
It's doing the same of HP and Sun. Why? Because it can.
I'm not saying IBM is "bad." I'm just saying that you do _not_ want to
defense or demonize companies engaged with IBM. In fact, had some in
the Linux community not gone so "rabid" on the March 2003 filing, SCO
might have not been able to put up the current "smokescreen" on Linux
IP.
> Red Hat made a business decision that left many people out in the cold
> (the RHL / RHEL line decision) ... CentOS fills that gap. Some CentOS
> users are very upset with Red Hat because of that decision. That does
> not make them shallow, they have the right to their opinion.
When did I say they were shallow?!?!?!
Now you're just demonizing anything I say!
I said people who take what I say and say I call company X "bad" and
company Y "good" are shallow. Get off the comments about companies and
just leave them be! There are long, involved details to the actions of
many companies -- and you can't demonize one company without looking at
the actions of another.
IBM is no different today then they were before. They just have an
equal interest, for now. Unfortunately, some companies with far better,
pro-GPL histories have been backed into a corner by IBM. And more are
currently in the making right now.
I just wish people could not make non-technical, political statements
on this list. Appreciate CentOS for what it is, without feeling the
need to make snide comments. That's all.
--
Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx
---------------------------------------------------------------------
It is mathematically impossible for someone who makes more than you
to be anything but richer than you. Any tax rate that penalizes them
will also penalize you similarly (to those below you, and then below
them). Linear algebra, let alone differential calculus or even ele-
mentary concepts of limits, is mutually exclusive with US journalism.
So forget even attempting to explain how tax cuts work. ;->
