Malicious article
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| pyellman Dec 28, 2004 11:08 AM EDT |
It has been said "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by sheer stupidity". However, I find it hard to believe that anyone is so stupid as to put in writing what is in this article. Clearly, this is a journalist with malice towards Linux. How else to reconcile the author's two main thrusts, (1) repeated fear mongering over a "SCO-like" attack with (2) repeated fear mongering over specifically, GPL'ed code. While those who have given even casual attention to the SCO case and the GPL are aware that if anything, the GPL provides a measure of protection against SCO-like (and specifically, SCO's) attacks, this author, who I suspect would describe himself as more than casually informed regarding IT issues, chooses to repeat the deliberately misleading theory of a connection between the two, making him part of a campaign of misinformation which is of course underwritten by you know who. Peter Yellman |
| ryan_ Dec 28, 2004 12:19 PM EDT |
OK, was this about Proprietary software being placed into GPL'd code illegally or the other way around? The author should learn to stay on topic. He jumped back and forth. |
| AnonymousCoward Dec 28, 2004 4:46 PM EDT |
My response here (it's almost a FAQ, really): http://linux.org.au/~leonb/articles/Blessing_and_cursing_IHT... |
| devnet Dec 29, 2004 10:51 AM EDT |
what this guy in the article is doing...is examining code for possible Open Source code inside of it. He's trying to protect the code from being labeled open source so that they can keep proprietary license on it. This isn't negative about anything...it is saying that open source is becoming so prolific that it is now being morphed into proprietary programs. |
| AnonymousCoward Dec 29, 2004 2:44 PM EDT |
devnet, he may be doing that but he's also presenting it as a grave and immediate risk, as if it's hard to write your own code without tainting it, as if there was no easy way of backing GPLed code out, as if using other peoples' code was somehow necessary. None of that is true, all of that is negative. Read all of my response to him and think about it: http://linux.org.au/~leonb/articles/Blessing_and_cursing_IHT... |
| devnet Dec 29, 2004 5:33 PM EDT |
It is a grave an immediate risk when you place yourself in their position. I don't blame them for doing what their doing. Let's not forget that the guy that wrote this might have had his title changed (he's from the Boston Globe and this is posted via International Herald Tribune) so we can't really blame him...they might have changed his title to be more standoffish. If you remove the title...the article is just naive in the sense that the author knows little about Open Source and SCO...so he probably listened to what programmers that he interviewed were telling him. Let's not jump the gun here either...this guy is only saying that "Improper use of open source components" can lead to lawsuits...if you'd just taken the time to notice this quote, you wouldn't have had to write your novel. |
| AnonymousCoward Dec 29, 2004 6:50 PM EDT |
devnet, I noticed his quote. If that was as far as he'd gone, there would be no novel. |
| purplewizard Dec 30, 2004 7:10 AM EDT |
The whole tone of the article sounds to me as if it blames the problem of licensed code appearing in their code as being the problem of the lecensor. The author also shows the usual bad editing or ignorance when it comes to the GPL. Claiming that the code that includes the GPL source "must" be released to the public. In fact the code merely needs to be available to anyone who receives a copy of the software not released universally. The story is written as a scare and at fails totally to note that their code may include lots of infringing code from other proprietary sources. They just don't know it until someone like SCO comes along saying "you have some of our trade secrets in your code". How do these authors get published. I think there needs to be a £1000 fine on authors and or publishers for every proven error in any professed "factual" article they publish. For a while prosecutors could make easy money for a while until these people got themselves in order! |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!