- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
More "Paul Murphy" Anti-Linux FUD: SCO or Son of SCO Can Still Win
|
|
|
Comments (27)
7 earlier comments in the full thread.
Oh geesh, Hans, nice strawmen and ad hominems. PJ's work speaks for itself. Just like it does for anyone. She gives the reasons and source documents for her conclusions, so whether you agree or disagree at least you can understand the basis for them. Unlike most commentators, analyists, and tech reporters who pretty much pull their 'Web Content' out of thin air. Hey, so they use their real names, does that give more credibility to their pointless crud?
O'Gara is a slimy bottom-feeder, and apparently you didn't notice that she didn't stay fired, when she should have. She shouldn't have a job anywhere within a thousand miles of anything journalism-related. But fortunately for her the Sys-Con publisher, Fuat Kirkaali, is even slimier and less ethical. His dirty exploits would fill a book.
Florian Mueller doesn't impress me either, not when he says things like
There are so many things wrong with that I hardly know where to begin.
I'm still waiting for the "PJ is an secret shill for foo" crowd to put up or shut up.
O'Gara is a slimy bottom-feeder, and apparently you didn't notice that she didn't stay fired, when she should have. She shouldn't have a job anywhere within a thousand miles of anything journalism-related. But fortunately for her the Sys-Con publisher, Fuat Kirkaali, is even slimier and less ethical. His dirty exploits would fill a book.
Florian Mueller doesn't impress me either, not when he says things like
Quoting: After years of pretending to be a friend of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), IBM now shows its true colors. IBM breaks the number one taboo of the FOSS community and shamelessly uses its patents against a well-respected FOSS project, the Hercules mainframe emulator.
There are so many things wrong with that I hardly know where to begin.
I'm still waiting for the "PJ is an secret shill for foo" crowd to put up or shut up.
I don't think there's any question that PJ is being fed information from somewhere. I'm not impressed at all with her commentary. But the thing is, she should be judged based on the accuracy of the information she provides. Most tech commentators call Microsoft to get talking points and run with that. It's an easy job. I'm not a fan of PJ, but you can judge her by the information she posts, and that's good enough for me.
> there's the O'Gara case
O'Gara was probably being paid by SCO, and was trying to stalk PJ (an action which is, in the way she tried to do it, almost certainly illegal). And, IMO, you'd have more credibility giving Enderle the benefit of a doubt than O'Gara. I have nothing but contempt for her.
> And legal / para-legal are exactly the types that try to maintain the status-quo in the IT sector,...
That's too broad a brush, Hans. Not every legal or para-legal worker supports the status quo.
> There are those who support a world where lawyers control which software can be published and which hardware can be released and which cannot, and if not who has to be paid 'taxes' to allow their product on the market.
That would be those who believe in the law, since the law of the land (even in Europe) largely says they can. Now, I disagree with that specific law, and I am quite willing to admit that having lawyers write and interpret the laws is a big mistake. However, that doesn't mean that having laws is a bad thing in general. Merely that things have gotten, as you said "way out of hand". And that's a problem of governments and governence, not the law as such. As I'm sure Bob will be more than willing to tell you if you let him. :)
> PJ seems one of them
In the sense I mention above, undoubtedly. In the sense you mean, perhaps not. See my broad brush comment above.
Look, PJ's not perfect. But she's right far more often than she's wrong. In fact, she's been right enough that if I disagree with her, I'll carefully check my assumptions before concluding she's wrong.
O'Gara was probably being paid by SCO, and was trying to stalk PJ (an action which is, in the way she tried to do it, almost certainly illegal). And, IMO, you'd have more credibility giving Enderle the benefit of a doubt than O'Gara. I have nothing but contempt for her.
> And legal / para-legal are exactly the types that try to maintain the status-quo in the IT sector,...
That's too broad a brush, Hans. Not every legal or para-legal worker supports the status quo.
> There are those who support a world where lawyers control which software can be published and which hardware can be released and which cannot, and if not who has to be paid 'taxes' to allow their product on the market.
That would be those who believe in the law, since the law of the land (even in Europe) largely says they can. Now, I disagree with that specific law, and I am quite willing to admit that having lawyers write and interpret the laws is a big mistake. However, that doesn't mean that having laws is a bad thing in general. Merely that things have gotten, as you said "way out of hand". And that's a problem of governments and governence, not the law as such. As I'm sure Bob will be more than willing to tell you if you let him. :)
> PJ seems one of them
In the sense I mention above, undoubtedly. In the sense you mean, perhaps not. See my broad brush comment above.
Look, PJ's not perfect. But she's right far more often than she's wrong. In fact, she's been right enough that if I disagree with her, I'll carefully check my assumptions before concluding she's wrong.
Hans, have you ever been stalked? I have. It's no fun.
Well, PJ even has her own personal stalker in MOG, who took her cue from Blake Stowell, PR guy for SCO. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100312150121798
And now this week, thanks to the volunteer efforts at Groklaw, we have even more evidence suggesting Microsoft is the chief enabler of this fiasco. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100627122353935
A lot of people want to shut down Groklaw. Some of those people would no doubt commit a crime against PJ's person to accomplish that. I will never begrudge her near-anonymity, and I look askance at anyone who does.
Well, PJ even has her own personal stalker in MOG, who took her cue from Blake Stowell, PR guy for SCO. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100312150121798
And now this week, thanks to the volunteer efforts at Groklaw, we have even more evidence suggesting Microsoft is the chief enabler of this fiasco. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100627122353935
A lot of people want to shut down Groklaw. Some of those people would no doubt commit a crime against PJ's person to accomplish that. I will never begrudge her near-anonymity, and I look askance at anyone who does.
Gus, the judge said you weren't supposed to tell about me .... oh, whoops.
although happily we agree on this one, keeping oneself safe on the net, regardless of what or how you say it is just good practices.
although happily we agree on this one, keeping oneself safe on the net, regardless of what or how you say it is just good practices.
Obviously, my comment was perceived harsher than I intended.
Sometimes I get a bit emotional about the software patent trolls (including IBM, MS, to a lesser extent Royal Philips and the like) who are destroying innovation and chances for small companies. So probably I'm the one to blame. Anyway...
I'm all for it. You know the website of the EP?
Any European Parliament member has to disclose which presents they received, and which companies they are / have been working for. Apart from their real names. That's how we know some of them are shills who sold out, and some of them (most likely) can be trusted.
For PJ, I repeat, we just don't know, so there's nothing to "put up". I'd like to trust her, but she makes it pretty hard. Mentioning sources is what Rob Weir (& co) do as well, but at least we know who he is and who he's working for.
Apart from that, IBM is the biggest patent polluter, so anyone defending IBM or OIN for that matter has lost most of his / her credibility to me when society is at stake. No matter how well informed they are. They still might be part of a lobby, and if so, I'd like to know.
I didn't say I won't give PJ any credibility, it's just the more I read about it, the less I trust her. I thought PJ to be 'almost perfect', but at a second thought, I'm a bit disappointed. Disclosing who you are adds credibility I'd say. However, PJ is in something which can be considered a dirty war so I understand she wants to stay behind the curtains.
I think Groklaw is a great website and PJ is doing great work, and so does OIN BTW. At this time, it's absolutely necessary somebody is doing that kind of work, and I should be grateful. Still however, they're proponents of a system I detest and they lack full disclosure. That's why my trust diminished from 'lots of trust' to 'I trust them'. That's what I tried to express. If you are unaware of the saga's PJ went through and you read for the first time about O'Gara and such, it's hard to tell what happened, and I think my comment reflects that confusion. So, confusion (is it the U of FUD?) diminishes credibility.
OK, now I have to hurry because I have to watch 'some important match'...
Quoting:I'm still waiting for the "PJ is an secret shill for foo" crowd to put up or shut up.
I'm all for it. You know the website of the EP?
Any European Parliament member has to disclose which presents they received, and which companies they are / have been working for. Apart from their real names. That's how we know some of them are shills who sold out, and some of them (most likely) can be trusted.
For PJ, I repeat, we just don't know, so there's nothing to "put up". I'd like to trust her, but she makes it pretty hard. Mentioning sources is what Rob Weir (& co) do as well, but at least we know who he is and who he's working for.
Apart from that, IBM is the biggest patent polluter, so anyone defending IBM or OIN for that matter has lost most of his / her credibility to me when society is at stake. No matter how well informed they are. They still might be part of a lobby, and if so, I'd like to know.
I didn't say I won't give PJ any credibility, it's just the more I read about it, the less I trust her. I thought PJ to be 'almost perfect', but at a second thought, I'm a bit disappointed. Disclosing who you are adds credibility I'd say. However, PJ is in something which can be considered a dirty war so I understand she wants to stay behind the curtains.
I think Groklaw is a great website and PJ is doing great work, and so does OIN BTW. At this time, it's absolutely necessary somebody is doing that kind of work, and I should be grateful. Still however, they're proponents of a system I detest and they lack full disclosure. That's why my trust diminished from 'lots of trust' to 'I trust them'. That's what I tried to express. If you are unaware of the saga's PJ went through and you read for the first time about O'Gara and such, it's hard to tell what happened, and I think my comment reflects that confusion. So, confusion (is it the U of FUD?) diminishes credibility.
OK, now I have to hurry because I have to watch 'some important match'...
Anonymity != No Credibility
Name Disclosure != Credibility
For personal security reasons that are too complicated to reveal here, for more than 13 years since I first created ComputerBob.com, I have always veiled my true identity behind my online pseudonym, "ComputerBob."
As far as I know, no one has ever questioned my credibility or motives.
But I'll bet that at least a few of you can think of a writer who always writes under his real name. A writer whose articles are regularly linked to from this site -- and whose motives, credibility and writing skills are called into question after nearly every single article.
For personal security reasons that are too complicated to reveal here, for more than 13 years since I first created ComputerBob.com, I have always veiled my true identity behind my online pseudonym, "ComputerBob."
As far as I know, no one has ever questioned my credibility or motives.
But I'll bet that at least a few of you can think of a writer who always writes under his real name. A writer whose articles are regularly linked to from this site -- and whose motives, credibility and writing skills are called into question after nearly every single article.
But it does help.
When you read Klaus Heihne Lehner is related to TaylorWessing, at which Microsoft gets a 10% discount - and stuff like that.
When you read Klaus Heihne Lehner is related to TaylorWessing, at which Microsoft gets a 10% discount - and stuff like that.
Quoting:Still however, [PJ and OIN a]re proponents of a system I detest and they lack full disclosure.Microsoft and Apple also lack full disclosure, and there is ZERO chance that will change any time soon.
It's foolish to think full disclosure from PJ and OIN, for the sake of "principles," won't be playing right into the hands of those who would destroy them.
Quoting:Microsoft and Apple also lack full disclosure
They don't have to, because we know which interests they are defending.
We also know whose interests PJ and OIN are defending: hobbyists, tinkerers, and volunteers.
I still don't see how pulling back the curtain on "Who is PJ?" and the decision processes of OIN will help matters.
I still don't see how pulling back the curtain on "Who is PJ?" and the decision processes of OIN will help matters.
Quoting:hobbyists, tinkerers, and volunteers.
Those would be helped by restricting patentability. It seems PJ agrees:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100628100422167
which is a bit odd given her defence of OIN.
The TurboHercules case is about one thing: executing mainframe software developed and licensed from IBM on non-IBM hardware. That's it. Nothing more or less. The IBM supposition that Microsoft is somehow involved is an unproven red herring argument of the sort that deservedly earned IBM the bad rep it had for many, many years in the IT industry.
What TurboHercules is attempting to do is exactly the sort of thing that Amdahl did back in the 80s (contrary to IBM's wishes but they were having problems with anti-trust issues in court) - and where the term FUD originates.
The Psystar case is very similar in that it is about one thing: executing an OS licensed from Apple on non-Apple hardware. That's it. Nothing more or less.
And like it or not, the first principle of software freedom means having "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)."
By taking a stand and supporting IBM and Apple in these two cases, PJ is taking a stand against "freedom 0" as defined by the Free Software Foundation. Ipso facto, PJ is taking a hypocritical position.
What TurboHercules is attempting to do is exactly the sort of thing that Amdahl did back in the 80s (contrary to IBM's wishes but they were having problems with anti-trust issues in court) - and where the term FUD originates.
The Psystar case is very similar in that it is about one thing: executing an OS licensed from Apple on non-Apple hardware. That's it. Nothing more or less.
And like it or not, the first principle of software freedom means having "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)."
By taking a stand and supporting IBM and Apple in these two cases, PJ is taking a stand against "freedom 0" as defined by the Free Software Foundation. Ipso facto, PJ is taking a hypocritical position.
Quoting:which is a bit odd given her defence of OIN.OIN may not be restricting patentability, but it's using the system in a way that helps preserve the freedom that Free Software devs and users do have. Kind of like using the copyright system in defense of copyleft.
Quoting:the first principle of software freedom means having "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)."But that freedom, like so many others, is not absolute; it can be negotiated away. Just like an NDA abridges one's free speech. A customer licensing the software, with the intention of breaking the license, is dealing in bad faith. (SCO, anyone?)
In this case, attempting to nullify the IBM license, endangers the enforceability of the GPL. That's why PJ is defending IBM.
Quoting:OIN may not be restricting patentability
While in the article linked, PJ says restricting is a good idea. Nonetheless, she defends OIN. Probably suffers from the same problem as I do: If I'm in a building which is on fire, I'm glad there's asbestos protecting me and I'd celebrate it's existence, but it doesn't mean it's needed / good for society and shouldn't be replaced.
> ...which is a bit odd given her defence of OIN.
With current patent law in place, she thinks having defensive patents protecting FOSS is a good thing. That's reasonable, not odd.
> The IBM supposition that Microsoft is somehow involved is an unproven red herring argument...
I'll agree with that position. It doesn't change the basics of the disagreement however, as you detail. I'm still undecided as to whether IBM is breaking the spirit of their agreement while abiding by the letter or not. However, quite frankly, it's not worth my time to figure it out, given the difficulty of getting the true facts of the matter. They do appear to be abiding by the letter of their agreement, and that's all I can expect from a corporation, especially one whose cash cow is being threatened.
> Probably suffers from the same problem as I do:
A fair summary, yes.
With current patent law in place, she thinks having defensive patents protecting FOSS is a good thing. That's reasonable, not odd.
> The IBM supposition that Microsoft is somehow involved is an unproven red herring argument...
I'll agree with that position. It doesn't change the basics of the disagreement however, as you detail. I'm still undecided as to whether IBM is breaking the spirit of their agreement while abiding by the letter or not. However, quite frankly, it's not worth my time to figure it out, given the difficulty of getting the true facts of the matter. They do appear to be abiding by the letter of their agreement, and that's all I can expect from a corporation, especially one whose cash cow is being threatened.
> Probably suffers from the same problem as I do:
A fair summary, yes.
IBM's FOSS-pledge patents are a tiny number anyway, something like 500-odd, out of a total patent portfolio the size of the sands on the beach and the stars in the universe, so it's not something I think is all that significant.
http://www.ibm.com/ibm/licensing/patents/pledgedpatents.pdf
And it's good for a giggle that the PDF was made in MS Word.
And it's good for a giggle that the PDF was made in MS Word.
Who here supports the validity of MS's EULA on MS-Windows?
There are many who would argue (correctly so, IMHO) that there are many invalid clauses to the EULA.
So, why do those same people defend PJ when she supports and defends license terms that are just as invalid as the EULA (when applying the same lines of reason to them), especially when those license terms directly contradict the principles of Software Freedom?
And notice, I never wrote that PJ was/is a shill: A closer reading of that sentence will reveal that I wrote that she is sounding more and more like a shill. Big difference.
As for PJ "usually being right" - I'm still waiting for all the big bad things that she predicted would happen as a result of the Novell-MS agreement.
She is not a goddess, she is not infallible, and she is most definitely NOT a spokesperson or leader for the whole of the FLOSS community and she should stop writing as if she were.
There are many who would argue (correctly so, IMHO) that there are many invalid clauses to the EULA.
So, why do those same people defend PJ when she supports and defends license terms that are just as invalid as the EULA (when applying the same lines of reason to them), especially when those license terms directly contradict the principles of Software Freedom?
And notice, I never wrote that PJ was/is a shill: A closer reading of that sentence will reveal that I wrote that she is sounding more and more like a shill. Big difference.
As for PJ "usually being right" - I'm still waiting for all the big bad things that she predicted would happen as a result of the Novell-MS agreement.
She is not a goddess, she is not infallible, and she is most definitely NOT a spokesperson or leader for the whole of the FLOSS community and she should stop writing as if she were.
Quoting:So, why do those same people defend PJ when she supports and defends license terms that are just as invalid as the EULA (when applying the same lines of reason to them), especially when those license terms directly contradict the principles of Software Freedom?Because, among her audience (geeks and lawyers), there is absolutely no excuse for not knowing what's in a license. The fact that a user (individual, or site) purchases an onerous license, or continues to use software under an onerous license, carries with it the implicit approval for its terms.
In other words, you knew it was a snake when you picked it up. Don't act all indignant when it bites you.
If one is going to attempt to invalidate the EULA, then one first must have purchased that EULA to have standing in court. Second, one must actually take the case to court. But note very, very well:
FOSS Freedom 0 does not (yet) have the force of law.
It does no good to cry, "Freedom 0! Freedom 0!", when trying to invalidate a EULA. If you want Freedom 0, use FOSS instead.
Quoting:I'm still waiting for all the big bad things that she predicted would happen as a result of the Novell-MS agreement.These people didn't have to wait: http://www.kmfms.com/whatsbad.html#predatory They can tell you first-hand what dealing with Microsoft is like, with or without an agreement.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Depends on what you call openness. There is the openness of Free Open Source Software, which PJ obviously supports, advocates, and defends, and there is the openness of giving away your personal space to all and sundry. I choose not to give away my personal space to all and Sundry, although clearly I've given away a bunch more than PJ, by publishing personal information on this site, consequentially I see nothing wrong with PJ maintaining anonymity.