[Linux-aus] Re: Statement on SCO

[Jeff Waugh]

<quote who="Con Zymaris">

> > > because their actions are a clear-and-present act of belligerence. 
> > 
> > How on Earth so? Seriously, where is some relevant and reliable evidence
> > that suggests Microsoft are indirectly funding SCO or helping them out? I'm
> 
> Where did I state that Microsoft are funding SCO?

You didn't. You suggested that their actions helped SCO out.

> Microsoft buys into the argument, and suddenly SCO are saying 'look, we 
> told you we had valuable IP rights. In fact, they are so valuable that 
> Microsoft has signed an agreement with us, vindicating our attack on 
> Linux.' Cluelessly aimed red herring? Yes. Effective? Maybe. Thus the 
> posited counter-argument.

Unfounded, completely lacking evidence, sensationalist conspiracy theory?
Sure! MS have done a business deal for whatever reason. The trade press have
hamfisted it up into an issue. Does that require a counter-argument? Jumping
to conclusions and giving them the "there's nothing to see here" response
is, come to think of it, remarkably like replying to spam on a public
mailing list -> it just makes things worse.

> Jeff, go and check out what Microsoft are including in SFU. I think you'll
> find that there is little on offer from SCO Unix which can match the
> quality of the GPL offerings.

I use SFU. I know what's in it. My point, which you deftly missed to keep
hammering home your own point, was that it doesn't matter what MS wants to
do with their license to SCO's UNIX bits. It's irrelevant.

> However, the timing of the Microsoft deal with SCO cannot be excused so
> lightly. Remember, Microsoft aren't including pieces of the Linux kernel
> in SFU, so SCO's recent rants about IP issues with Linux are not what's
> causing Microsoft to suddenly sign a deal. Tactically, the only motivator
> is maximal damage point scoring off Linux, which I believe can be
> counter-argued effectively.

Sorry, but this is unfounded, pointing-at-bogeyman silliness. Until someone
gets up and publishes a Halloween-class document pointing to conspiratorial
intrigue between Microsoft and SCO [1], I don't think we need to validate
this inane sensationalist crap by recognising it at all.

The fight that matters to us is making a public mockery of SCO's laughable
initial filing, pointing out how serious the allegations are and why they
matter very deeply to the FOSS community, and coming across as professional,
capable, committed and confident in our software and community.

Tilting at windmills and wailing at the big-bad-bogeyman of the IT industry
is fundamentally irrelevant to those goals.

If, however, your goal is to point out the failings of, and poke fun at MS
at every opportunity (sometimes, it truly sounds like some people on this
list only care about that), please go and have a good read of the Linux
Advocacy HOWTO.

[ Con, I'm not accusing you of not being a good advocate, I'm suggesting
that this particular fight - the whole MS angle on the SCO thing - is not
worth your effort. Unless you're in it for the exposure. ;-) ]

- Jeff

[1] script goes like this:

McBride: Hey, you remember how we bought DR-DOS, sued your arses off, and
settled for an undisclosed sum that has kept our company going for the last
few years?

Gates: ... Yes?

McBride: So, we were thinking of doing the same to IBM. Wanna join in the
fun?

Gates: Please get out of my office you slimy, odious rodent.

-- 
GU4DEC: June 16th-18th in Dublin, Ireland             http://www.guadec.org/
 
     "Everyone's a little queer, why can't she be a little straight?" -
                           Weezer, Pink Triangle