I have no objection to the BBC condemning the attack on SCO's website. Yes, it's somewhat amusing and yes, they clearly had it coming, but no it wasn't right to do it, and from the perspective of Linux's cause it's an unhelpful PR disaster.
What pisses me off about that article is "If anyone's anger has no measure, it is the wrath of internet zealots who believe that code should be free to all (open source). … SCO is the big, bad company that violates one of their sacred principles, as they would see it." This is a material misrepresentation of the position of most Linux users.
I, for one, don't agree that code should be "free to all (open source)". For starters, "not costing money", "unencumbered with licensing restrictions", and "available as source code" are three very different issues. Furthermore, I don't believe all code should be in any or all of those categories, merely that it's good for there to be code available in those categories, and the code available in those categories tends to be good. Finally, I don't even believe Linux is "free" in the sense of "unencumbered with licensing restrictions"; I prefer the BSD licence.
The "sacred principles" are even simpler:
People can release code they write in whatever way they choose.
People shouldn't falsely claim ownership of code, in an attempt to gain commercial advantage over the rightful owners.
But, of course, it's tricky to turn those principles into controversial copy.
Interpolation on my part. The circumstantial evidence does point to it having been a retribution for SCO's anti-Linux campaign - so if not a Linux hacker then who?
The evidence seems to indicate that the attacker stopped because ESR published an article asking them to stop (and they then contacted ESR to say so). Why stop if your aim is to cast Linux hackers in a bad light?
It says that the attack "will not actually end until the timers on his 'bots run out". So what, if anything, did this person do? If they did nothing, how does ESR know that they were actually the person responsible? The story seems rather short on verifiable facts...
That stopping appears to have convinced you that a Linux hacker was responsible, so it worked. :-)
[Obviously I can say this in response to anything, which just leaves us guessing again... but frankly in ESR's case I suspect the voices in his head made the whole thing up.]
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-05 01:21 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-05 03:44 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-05 01:27 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-05 01:33 am (UTC)Uh, no it doesn't. This technique is not new.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-05 02:09 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-05 02:36 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-05 04:59 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-05 05:06 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-05 05:12 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-05 05:23 am (UTC)The bit I'm most unhappy with is their implication that all Linux devotees are OSS zealots.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-05 03:36 am (UTC)What pisses me off about that article is "If anyone's anger has no measure, it is the wrath of internet zealots who believe that code should be free to all (open source). … SCO is the big, bad company that violates one of their sacred principles, as they would see it." This is a material misrepresentation of the position of most Linux users.
I, for one, don't agree that code should be "free to all (open source)". For starters, "not costing money", "unencumbered with licensing restrictions", and "available as source code" are three very different issues. Furthermore, I don't believe all code should be in any or all of those categories, merely that it's good for there to be code available in those categories, and the code available in those categories tends to be good. Finally, I don't even believe Linux is "free" in the sense of "unencumbered with licensing restrictions"; I prefer the BSD licence.
The "sacred principles" are even simpler:
- People can release code they write in whatever way they choose.
- People shouldn't falsely claim ownership of code, in an attempt to gain commercial advantage over the rightful owners.
But, of course, it's tricky to turn those principles into controversial copy.(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-05 06:25 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-05 06:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-05 07:18 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-05 07:21 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-05 09:30 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-05 09:33 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-05 09:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-05 01:16 pm (UTC)Anyway, I did say the evidence was circumstantial.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-05 06:37 pm (UTC)[Obviously I can say this in response to anything, which just leaves us guessing again... but frankly in ESR's case I suspect the voices in his head made the whole thing up.]