On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 01:06:04 +0000, ton wrote:

> I will say now that it sure looks like SCO DOES deserve the censure, but
> none of them knew that until just recently. Yet many howled for
> boycotts etc. in spite of not having any idea whether or not the claims
> were legit.

Initially, the reason we were angry was that we were frustrated. SCO had
claimed Linux code was infringing. We wanted it out, but SCO wouldn't
tell us what it was. The overriding feeling was complete frustration.

Then SCO said they wanted the code to stay in. The only logical reason
for this was that they wanted to collect money from Linux users for the
use of Linux as a whole. This later turned out to be the case. But the
users, and especially the contributors, had done so with the belief that
Linux would remain free, and now SCO was attempting to commandeer Linux.

We never wanted to steal code. When SCO claimed we had, we wanted the
code removed and the shady contributor crucified, so Linux could remain
free. But it became increasingly evident that SCO was bent on taking
Linux for itself. They weren't merely protecting their IP, they were
trying to use it to steal all of Linux.

Besides that, to an increasing extent, SCO was leading a PR campaign
against Linux in particular and open source software in general, and
making wild claims about the GPL. The initial filings had jabs against
Linux, like the whole "bike" thing. More recently, SCO has maligned
distributors who don't offer indemnification, despite the fact that it
wouldn't be necessary if not for SCO. You can't deny that we were
attacked.

My point is that regardless of the legitimacy of SCO's claims, they
deserved our scorn from day one. If SCO found some of their code in
Linux, they should have written linux-kernel@vger.org, and it would have
been gone within the week. If SCO wanted payback, they should sue whoever
contributed the code. If IBM contributed the code, they should sue IBM.
That much was justified. But not disclosing the code was not justified.
Not allowing their code to be separated from Linux was not justified.
Claiming that the whole of Linux is an unauthorized derivative was not
justified. Threatening users with legal action unless they buy a license
was not justified. Launching a massive dishonest smear campaign was not
justified. Valid claims or not, SCO is and was way out of line.

I frankly have a bit of difficulty understanding how you don't see this,
but hopefully that sheds a bit of light on the Linux community's feelings.

--
Nucleon, <tcfelker@mtco.com>
<http://vlevel.sourceforge.net> - Stop fiddling with the volume knob.

War not make one great.
-- Yoda