Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

[News] Possible SCO-Microsoft-Psystar Connections Seen Again

  • Subject: [News] Possible SCO-Microsoft-Psystar Connections Seen Again
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 23:58:34 +0100
  • Followup-to: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • User-agent: KNode/4.3.1
Hash: SHA1

Professor Hollaar's Amicus Brief in Bilski

,----[ Quote ]
| Lineo was, of course, an offshoot of Caldera, spun off in 
| 1999 as a wholly owned subsidiary. Why would it want 
| Hollaar's web site? For what business purpose would it fund 
| it? According to a report in April of 2002, by Maureen 
| O'Gara, Lineo had ran out of money and was bouncing 
| paychecks. If true, maybe paying professors to put up web 
| sites isn't a viable business model? I am starting to 
| wonder how long ago the idea of suing over the GPL first 
| began to stir.
| Harris replaced Bryan Sparks as CEO of Lineo in 2001, by 
| the way. He started out as VP and General Counsel at Lineo 
| when it began. Sparks founded Caldera, Inc. in 1994. Harris 
| worked for Summit Law Group also, and in fact he was a 
| founding member (more Lineo history at that link), and he 
| was the lead technical lawyer for Caldera in its lawsuit 
| against Microsoft. You'll find Palumbo in the Caldera v. 
| Microsoft filing also. You can find Hollaar's other amicus 
| brief submitted by him and IEEE-USA in the Bilski case, the 
| one he filed earlier with the appeals court, on his page of 
| papers.
| Starting to feel like the Ozarks, where everyone is 
| creepily related to everyone else you keep bumping into? 
| The point is, there is a connection between Hollaar and 
| Caldera/SCO that goes back years.
| [...]
| How can a professor of computer science not know that 
| software didn't start out as proprietary? That came second, 
| not first. And talk about missing the point of the open 
| source development model, where sharing knowledge is 
| deliberate. You could call it the scientific method. It's 
| like doctors sharing their knowledge from experiments and 
| such, so other doctors don't have to repeat what they've 
| already done. It's not about keeping that knowledge secret; 
| the whole point is to share, so that the state of the field 
| can quickly advance. The FOSS community shares on purpose, 
| in order to share knowledge, also so the knowledge remains 
| available to all. It has nothing to do with cloning 
| anything. "GNU's not Unix" is a meaningful phrase. And the 
| GPL in no way downplays copyright protection. It is based 
| on copyright law, and the GPL is enforced using copyright 
| law, so his footnote is grossly inaccurate, not to mention
| offensive and demeaning, to me anyway.
| [...]
| Oh, and speaking of small worlds, Hollaar's bio says 
| "Professor Hollaar is currently working on a new approach 
| to patent reform and laws governing shrink-wrap and click-
| on licenses." Speaking of Psystar. And look at a comment 
| submitted, according to Terekhov, by Hollaar to the FSF 
| during the rewriting of the GPLv3:
|   This is not a correct statement of copyright law, at 
|   least in the United States. With respect to "propagate", 
|   it is likely a tautology because of the defintion of 
|   "propagate" covering only things "that require permission 
|   under applicable copyright law". But for "modify", 17 
|   U.S.C. 117 permits the "owner of a copy of a computer 
|   program" to make an "adaptation" in particular 
|   circumstances, and makes it clear that making that 
|   adaptation does not "infringe copyright if you do not 
|   accept this License." It also does not seem to recognize 
|   the "first sale" doctrine codified in 17 U.S.C. 109, that 
|   permits the transfer of a lawfully-made copy "without the 
|   authority of the copyright owner". Perhaps the interplay 
|   between the definition of "propagate" and this section 
|   covers it, but it is certainly not made clear and, in 
|   fact, misleads one in thinking that the only way to 
|   redistribute a lawful copy is to accept the License.
| Sounds familiar, doesn't it? A little like Psystar's 
| position, isn't it? A lot like Psystar, huh? Coincidence? I 
| don't know. But it's eerie, to me.
| [...]
| And in 2003, "alexander" posted this comment on Groklaw 
| about how to work around the GPL, a la Psystar, as I read 
| it, and included a link to the SCOX Yahoo! message board, 
| to comments by Alexander Terekhov in support of SCO Group, 
| making the circle complete.
| I know what will interest you the most is the Hollaar 
| brief, particularly the arguments on software and whether 
| it is math, but at least you will understand from all this 
| why, despite not knowing exactly how all these pieces fit 
| together, I have come to suspect that the same folks behind 
| SCO are somehow behind Psystar too, and that at its most 
| fundamental, it was and still is an ideological attack on 
| the GPL.



Apple, Psystar Seek Trial On Nov. 9, 2009

,----[ Quote ]
| The system integrator recently introduced a Linux-based personal computer
| that sells for just $299.
| Psystar's OpenLite system ships with the Ubuntu Linux desktop preinstalled,
| running on a 1.8-GHz Intel Celeron chip with integrated graphics support.
| Upgrading to a dual-core Pentium chip costs an additional $40. "With
| unparalleled affordability, this computer can bring Windows computing into
| every home and office," Psystar boasts on its Web site, even though the
| system runs Linux, not Microsoft Windows.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index