Well, If this goes the way I think it's going (SCO going down in flames),
their Lawyer that a certain august member of this list has been confused
with, is going to have the worlds largest resume stain.
|---------+---------------------------->
| | Dean Kent |
| | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
| | ech.com> |
| | Sent by: Linux on|
| | 390 Port |
| | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
| | IST.EDU> |
| | |
| | |
| | 09/09/2003 10:38 |
| | AM |
| | Please respond to|
| | Linux on 390 Port|
| | |
|---------+---------------------------->
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|
|
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| cc:
|
| Subject: Re: SCO CEO's letter to Open Source Community
|
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
---- Original Message ----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SCO CEO's letter to Open Source Community
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 15:58:00 +0100
>
>This all reminds me of the Red Queen from "Alice through the Looking
>Glass"
>- "No, No, sentence first, trail later."
>
Yes, the author engages in a series of logical fallacies in order to
come to the desired conclusion, from what I can tell.
He starts out by discussing the issue of intellectual property, then
jumps to a DDoS attack by an individual as 'evidence' of a problem
with the Open Source development model. The fact that individuals
within a group may engage in illegal or unethical activities is *not*
evidence that the business model is unsound or questionable.
Then, he points to a statement by Bruce Perens that at one time there
*was* code copied to Linux that was not properly attributed - but it
has since been removed. That this one incident occurred many years
ago, and has since been addressed, does *not* reveal "...fundamental
structural flaws in the Linux development process". What it does is
indicate that there *was* a problem, and it was addressed. In order
to show that this is 'one small example of' a trend, he must show
other examples, and/or provide details of the process and point out
the flaws.
He then goes on to discuss IP laws and issues, and SCO's rights, with
the *implication* that somehow SCO has already shown these rights
have been violated. In the meantime, it appears that no proof has
been shown, either in that letter nor in any public forum, that SCO's
intellectual property rights have been violated. Seems to be mostly
marketing and PR at this point...
Regards,
Dean
