Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fsfe-uk] BBC Article about Linux SCO and Copyrights - BBCcalls for statements (fwd)]

[Ramanan Selvaratnam]

Alex Hudson wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-09-03 at 20:40, Paul wrote:
>
> > A reply from Bill Thompson (the chap who did the SCO copyrights piece
> > for BBC Online)
>
>
> (probably not nice to forward private emails to public lists, but I'll
> forgive you this once ;)
>
> I don't really see what he was responding to, although to be fair I very
> much doubt he will have received many constructive emails from people.
>
> He repeats his obvious lack of clue: GPL depends on US copyright.. no,
> it was written with the Berne convention in mind. GNU open to copyright
> misapproriation: no, the FSF require written, signed agreements from all
> developers (which is probably a higher standard than most proprietary
> firms).

Yes contributing to the GNU project can be a bit of a pain sometimes.
All those forms to fill in and find the post box.
Getting into the GNU project is not also that easy ...there is a
stingent quality control process.

Linux is not part of the GNU project. (note: it is free software though 
by the adoption of the GPL as a seperate issue)

Linux made use of and continues to make use of the freely available 
framework offered by the GNU project.


> I don't particularly see anything wrong with his article other than it
> was mostly mis-informed. The basic point (that "open source" developers
> should be careful wrt copyright) is okay, the conclusion (that they are
> not careful) is provable nonsense, and the supporting evidence is weak
> at best. 

The BBCi article is fundamentally wrong in not researching the issue 
enough. It is not up to date with the underlying issue
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3191281.stm>

'...It is not perfect though, and it is not immune from copyright law 
just because it is morally superior'?!

This [news.com] article (published on 07/08/2003)... 
.<http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-5060965.html>

...could have thrown light on how IBM and others were presenting 
arguments against SCO's claims based on copyright law itself. IBM had 
counter sued even back then!
The current situation is very different but by mentioning the vital 
counter suit itself those in the dark would have got a better 
intorduction to the issue.

It should also have been clear that copyright law is adequate for 
protection of software and Linux depends on it instead of fearing it 
like some some disease!


> Bill Thompson just appears to be a muck stirrer; reading his article is

Yep, when it is alleged with sentences that miss the point of who 
handles what and how in developing free software with sentences like

'the typical response of a Linux user'?!
'argue - as some have - that SCO should be destroyed'?!

Bill is not just spreading FUD <http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUD>

Please stop spreading FUD and muck! This is not the time for 
misinformation.

> like listening to Alan Green on FiveLive's 606. They put this stuff out
> there to "stimulate discussion" (i.e., cause a stir), and it does that.

Well the commenting facility under the article is not there ...so is the 
stirring comment about coming down from high-horses (?)


> Fair play to him. I know the BBC aren't the only people who do this;
> several well-known tech writers have admitted to me in private that they
> play Devil's advocate on a fairly regular basis. Take it for what it is,

...but it is unfair to pick on someone with wrong information when there 
is a mountain of controversy out there.

Anyway is it not Apache is the most famous free software?
Or is Linux really that famous now :-)

Best wishes,

Ramanan