Applying open source pressure on SCO
Hello all! I wanted to see how to the following ideas will fly with the open source crowd in view of SCO latest outrageous behaviour: 0. Make clean ./configure fail on SCO systems by modifying autoconf. User could still compile but not by default (special flags to ./configure would need to be supplied). 1. Calling out to OS developers to put bugs related to SCO platforms at the end of their bug lists. 2. Removing SCO platform as target for gcc and forcing sco to maintain such a back end on their own. These are ofcourse very extreme measures but SCO seems to be acting so outregeously as to disregard the whole community of OS and FS developers. I think we should let them know that hurting the OS community is much more severe than milking IBM's money. The blatant refusal by SCO to reveal which kernel code is in question is abismal. This goes to the heart of their intentions which is to hurt the entire community and thus raise their value as seen in the eyes of Gates and friends. The damage they are causing can only be assesed in the billions. I, as an open source developers and as a Linux consultant, am directly hurt by this latest SCO scam which reduces my clients wishes to move to Linux. This actually hurts my pocket! I do not see any moral problem with issuing an open call for all companies to drop UnixWare and annoucing an ordered plan for removing support for it accross the entire line of open source project. So, how many are for threatening taking such steps and how many are willing to activly trying to to take such steps ? I want to remind everyone that there is nothing illegal in taking such steps - for instance - there is nothing illegal in forking apache and maintaining a SCOless apache - and if the number of downloads of the SCOless apache will be high enough it may be that the apache group will remove support for SCO also... There is certainly enough anti SCO feelings out there to make SCOless packages in great demand (I would even consider making a SCOless icon for open source projects to use). Cheers, and an early demise to our favourite McBride...:) Mark = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Applying open source pressure on SCO
On Thursday 19 June 2003 16:26, Mark Veltzer wrote: I wanted to see how to the following ideas will fly with the open source crowd in view of SCO latest outrageous behaviour: 0. Make clean ./configure fail on SCO systems by modifying autoconf. User could still compile but not by default (special flags to ./configure would need to be supplied). 1. Calling out to OS developers to put bugs related to SCO platforms at the end of their bug lists. 2. Removing SCO platform as target for gcc and forcing sco to maintain such a back end on their own. I can't believe that I'm actually agreeing with Mark on something ;-) while I usually do not favor militant OS/FS tactics, these suggestions might actually be a good idea. -- Oded ::.. My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular. -- Adlai E. Stevenson = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Applying open source pressure on SCO
see the ban SCO icons at www.pclinxonline.com (sign the petition;) Ely Levy System group Hebrew University Jerusalem Israel On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Mark Veltzer wrote: Hello all! I wanted to see how to the following ideas will fly with the open source crowd in view of SCO latest outrageous behaviour: 0. Make clean ./configure fail on SCO systems by modifying autoconf. User could still compile but not by default (special flags to ./configure would need to be supplied). 1. Calling out to OS developers to put bugs related to SCO platforms at the end of their bug lists. 2. Removing SCO platform as target for gcc and forcing sco to maintain such a back end on their own. These are ofcourse very extreme measures but SCO seems to be acting so outregeously as to disregard the whole community of OS and FS developers. I think we should let them know that hurting the OS community is much more severe than milking IBM's money. The blatant refusal by SCO to reveal which kernel code is in question is abismal. This goes to the heart of their intentions which is to hurt the entire community and thus raise their value as seen in the eyes of Gates and friends. The damage they are causing can only be assesed in the billions. I, as an open source developers and as a Linux consultant, am directly hurt by this latest SCO scam which reduces my clients wishes to move to Linux. This actually hurts my pocket! I do not see any moral problem with issuing an open call for all companies to drop UnixWare and annoucing an ordered plan for removing support for it accross the entire line of open source project. So, how many are for threatening taking such steps and how many are willing to activly trying to to take such steps ? I want to remind everyone that there is nothing illegal in taking such steps - for instance - there is nothing illegal in forking apache and maintaining a SCOless apache - and if the number of downloads of the SCOless apache will be high enough it may be that the apache group will remove support for SCO also... There is certainly enough anti SCO feelings out there to make SCOless packages in great demand (I would even consider making a SCOless icon for open source projects to use). Cheers, and an early demise to our favourite McBride...:) Mark = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Applying open source pressure on SCO
-Original Message- From: Oded Arbel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [snip] I can't believe that I'm actually agreeing with Mark on something ;-) while I usually do not favor militant OS/FS tactics, these suggestions might actually be a good idea. If all of the open source applications will remove SCO support, SCO's budget will be distributed towards adding this support back. This can reduce the amount of money going towards the lawsuit. Or worse - if all of the major open-source licenses will add an anti-SCO clause, banning use on a SCO machine, SCO will be left behind with current versions unless they write their own versions. They have to be different than the O/S versions, because doing otherwise would be a violation of the license. They have to be released, per the old O/S license that they are bound to. But there are other implications to this form of activism. Soon some guy who doesn't like some country will add a clause to the O/S license banning use in that country... Not a good precedent. -- Arik ** This email and attachments have been scanned for potential proprietary or sensitive information leakage. Vidius, Inc. Protecting Your Information from the Inside Out. www.vidius.com ** To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Applying open source pressure on SCO
Is there a date for the trial, or this circus is gonna last forever??? -- Itay 'z9u2K' Duvdevani, GNU/Linux Kinneret. Public GPG Key: ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/kinneret/z9u2k.asc = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Applying open source pressure on SCO
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 08:23:43PM +0300, Itay 'z9u2K' Duvdevani wrote: Is there a date for the trial, or this circus is gonna last forever??? No date is set yet, as far as I know. This wiki has far more information than any normal person would want to know about this case: http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/SCOvsIBM Now can we please can the off topic discussion? This is supposed to be a technical list. Lately, it has been everything but. -- Muli Ben-Yehuda http://www.mulix.org http://www.livejournal.com/~mulix/ pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Applying open source pressure on SCO
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 05:01:41PM +0300, Arik Baratz wrote: But there are other implications to this form of activism. Soon some guy who doesn't like some country will add a clause to the O/S license banning use in that country... Not a good precedent. The owner of a project is entitled to give whatever license he wants. He cannot, however, claim that after prohibiting SCO to use the product the license is GPL compliant. It is not. That is why I did not mention licenses. The GPL is great. We should keep it. And the GPL does not have a built in Black List feature. Which is good. I was talking about the myriad of small details which makes a project like gnome or kde or apache compile well on SCO. If the gnome or kde or apache stop accepting patches to clean the compilation on SCO or even tear out support for SCO compilation from their ./configure.in scripts there is nothing against that in the GPL... The GPL does not oblige the author to support platforms he does not want to and this WITHOUT modifying the license. People who wish, for instance, to create an open source project which specifies that Israelis cannot use it are welcome to it. I have nothing against them except that I would not join any project which has such a black list in it's license and I hope others won't either. In any case I would fight against this kind of project trying to classify itself as free source. A free source should have the same rights for everyone. Even the detested SCO. It does not mean that free source developers should keep on bypassing SCO weirdness using their configure.in scripts and makefiles while the SCO CEO is on the war path with them. Let SCO do that - if they can!!! Cheers, Mark = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Applying open source pressure on SCO
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 05:01:41PM +0300, Arik Baratz wrote: If all of the open source applications will remove SCO support, SCO's budget will be distributed towards adding this support back. This can reduce the amount of money going towards the lawsuit. Or worse - if all of the major open-source licenses will add an anti-SCO clause, banning use on a SCO machine, SCO will be left behind with current versions unless they write their own versions. They have to be different than the O/S versions, because doing otherwise would be a violation of the license. They have to be released, per the old O/S license that they are bound to. If you add a clause to a license that bans it from SCO, it is no longer free software. SCO and SCO unix users have the full right to support their own free software. Recall that free software bascally means you cannot and should not prevent helping other users. Not actively supporting free software on SCO (like recent version of nmap) sounds like a good idea. But not allowing SCO's users to help themselves is wrong. -- Tzafrir Cohen +---+ http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir/ |vim is a mutt's best friend| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] +---+ = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Applying open source pressure on SCO
On Thursday 19 June 2003 16:47, Ely Levy wrote: see the ban SCO icons at www.pclinxonline.com (sign the petition;) Hm, DNS lookup failure for that hostname... -- Dan Armak Matan, Israel Public GPG key: http://cvs.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key Fingerprint: DD70 DBF9 E3D4 6CB9 2FDD 0069 508D 9143 8D5F 8951 pgp0.pgp Description: signature
Re: Applying open source pressure on SCO
On Thursday 19 June 2003 16:47, Ely Levy wrote: see the ban SCO icons at www.pclinxonline.com (sign the petition;) ...should apparently be www.pclinuxonline.com. -- Dan Armak Matan, Israel Public GPG key: http://cvs.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key Fingerprint: DD70 DBF9 E3D4 6CB9 2FDD 0069 508D 9143 8D5F 8951 pgp0.pgp Description: signature
Re: Applying open source pressure on SCO
On Thursday 19 June 2003 16:26, Mark Veltzer wrote: Hello all! I wanted to see how to the following ideas will fly with the open source crowd in view of SCO latest outrageous behaviour: The Boycott SCO apge on pclinuxonline.com has an interesting suggestion: Linus, please deny SCO the right to the Linux trademark until they drop these suits and agree in writing to never pursue them again against any Linux vendor. If Linus can do that, it'd be a good way to hurt SCO (without waiting for the trial to begin). -- Dan Armak Matan, Israel Public GPG key: http://cvs.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key Fingerprint: DD70 DBF9 E3D4 6CB9 2FDD 0069 508D 9143 8D5F 8951 pgp0.pgp Description: signature
Re: Applying open source pressure on SCO
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 06:09:01PM +0300, Dan Armak wrote: The Boycott SCO apge on pclinuxonline.com has an interesting suggestion: Linus, please deny SCO the right to the Linux trademark until they drop these suits and agree in writing to never pursue them again against any Linux vendor. What is the practical meaning of this, and how exactly would it affect SCO? --Amos = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Applying open source pressure on SCO
On Thursday 19 June 2003 19:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 06:09:01PM +0300, Dan Armak wrote: The Boycott SCO apge on pclinuxonline.com has an interesting suggestion: Linus, please deny SCO the right to the Linux trademark until they drop these suits and agree in writing to never pursue them again against any Linux vendor. What is the practical meaning of this, and how exactly would it affect SCO? Hmm. On second thoughts I'm not sure myself :-( IANAL, so I don't really know either way. AFAIK you can't forbid someone from using your trademark if he isn't directly competing with you, and a distribution like SCO Linux isn't competing directly with the kernel produced by Linus. OTOH, perhaps he could empower another distro(s) who is competing with SCO to do something. (I wonder what the pclinuxonline.com people have in mind?) But on second thoughts it really doesn't look like a smart move. SCO wouldn't obey without a court order, and it'd just make the trademark look weak/unenforced. And suing them is pointless, there are lots of better things to sue them over. Oh well... -- Dan Armak Matan, Israel Public GPG key: http://cvs.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key Fingerprint: DD70 DBF9 E3D4 6CB9 2FDD 0069 508D 9143 8D5F 8951 pgp0.pgp Description: signature
Re: Applying open source pressure on SCO
Mark Veltzer wrote: People who wish, for instance, to create an open source project which specifies that Israelis cannot use it are welcome to it. They cannot. The requirement from Free software (and from open source software) do not allow for such a restriction in the license. It is not clear how respected this is going to be (see qmail for an example where the license is not free, but almost everybody uses it anyways as-if). In any case, that goes against item 5 on OSI's requirement - No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups. Such a license cannot be approved. Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Open Source integration consultant Home page resume - http://www.shemesh.biz/ = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Applying open source pressure on SCO
On Thursday 19 June 2003 20:16, Dan Armak wrote: IANAL, so I don't really know either way. AFAIK you can't forbid someone from using your trademark if he isn't directly competing with you, and a Can anyone define the verb use trademark? What does it mean? It's not like SCO claims their software is Linux, right? And they stopped selling Linux-based software, right? This might be getting over the edge of the scope of the list, but it's about user rights and definitions of legal terms we encounter virtually every day today, so I hopethe powers that be will bear with me. --Amos = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Applying open source pressure on SCO
come on how many open source projects do you know which supports SCO? Ely Levy System group Hebrew University Jerusalem Israel On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Mark Veltzer wrote: On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 05:01:41PM +0300, Arik Baratz wrote: But there are other implications to this form of activism. Soon some guy who doesn't like some country will add a clause to the O/S license banning use in that country... Not a good precedent. The owner of a project is entitled to give whatever license he wants. He cannot, however, claim that after prohibiting SCO to use the product the license is GPL compliant. It is not. That is why I did not mention licenses. The GPL is great. We should keep it. And the GPL does not have a built in Black List feature. Which is good. I was talking about the myriad of small details which makes a project like gnome or kde or apache compile well on SCO. If the gnome or kde or apache stop accepting patches to clean the compilation on SCO or even tear out support for SCO compilation from their ./configure.in scripts there is nothing against that in the GPL... The GPL does not oblige the author to support platforms he does not want to and this WITHOUT modifying the license. People who wish, for instance, to create an open source project which specifies that Israelis cannot use it are welcome to it. I have nothing against them except that I would not join any project which has such a black list in it's license and I hope others won't either. In any case I would fight against this kind of project trying to classify itself as free source. A free source should have the same rights for everyone. Even the detested SCO. It does not mean that free source developers should keep on bypassing SCO weirdness using their configure.in scripts and makefiles while the SCO CEO is on the war path with them. Let SCO do that - if they can!!! Cheers, Mark = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Applying open source pressure on SCO
missing a u there it's http://www.pclinuxonline.com/index.php :) Ely Levy System group Hebrew University Jerusalem Israel On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Dan Armak wrote: On Thursday 19 June 2003 16:47, Ely Levy wrote: see the ban SCO icons at www.pclinxonline.com (sign the petition;) Hm, DNS lookup failure for that hostname... -- Dan Armak Matan, Israel Public GPG key: http://cvs.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key Fingerprint: DD70 DBF9 E3D4 6CB9 2FDD 0069 508D 9143 8D5F 8951 = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
