Re: <nettime> Update: Linux strikes back... III

["nettime's digest" <nettime-l@bbs.thing.net>]

Table of Contents:

   Re: <nettime> Update: Linux strikes back... III                                 
     ". __ ." <mail_box@gmx.net>                                                     

   Re: <nettime> Update: Linux strikes back... III                                 
     Heiko Recktenwald <uzs106@ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de>                                 



------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:44:32 +0200
From: ". __ ." <mail_box@gmx.net>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Update: Linux strikes back... III


hi,


>I am not completely convinced about this. First of all, why should I
>defend IBM? Because it is part of the "good" and against "evil" ?
>They invented the PC but the clever Bill Gates got the money, chapeau,
>however bad his "OS" is today. Dos was not unix but it worked.
> 

I agree that companies try to make money - surprise... and the best
product does not always win - surprise again... It has also nothing to do
with good against evil, it is just a situation, where my interests in
continuing the distribution of Linux coincide with the interests of IBM,
who will even use his own resources to achieve this goal - thx ibm

>Copyleft etc is fine, Caldera and Linux etcpp, but besides that, it is
>possible that the old contracts between IBM and SCO are more special.
>This is about pacta sunt servanda, a completely different story.

The problem is not the judgement on the question if the contract is still
valid. But there are other serious problems:

1. By claiming, that Linux is an illegal derivative of software SCO
acquired, SCO threatend Linux as a whole... (a decision on the merits
would also include if this was true or not...)

2. If the strategy turns out to be profitable, this will repeat itself in
various forms (Strategy meaning: Trade up stocks short-time by phantastic
claims and profit from it without anyone countering it, making this an
epensive move -> that's where we need IBM again or who do you think will
pay?!)

3. Other competitors might be dissuaded from copying IBMs strategy to
embrace Open Source, providing further financial resources to developing
the software, if this problem is not resolved...


>IBMs freedom is not mine.

Sometimes it is, tiburon, if one would only notice. 


Cheers,

g 


------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 01:20:07 +0200 (CEST)
From: Heiko Recktenwald <uzs106@ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Update: Linux strikes back... III

Well,

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, . __ . wrote:

>it is just a situation, where my interests
>in continuing the distribution of Linux coincide with the interests of
>IBM, who will even use his own resources to achieve this goal - thx ibm

Yepp, but I wouldnt think you are the real target. As I saw it, it is
about this contract and has not so much to do with linux in general.

> >Copyleft etc is fine, Caldera and Linux etcpp, but besides that, it is
> >possible that the old contracts between IBM and SCO are more special.
> >This is about pacta sunt servanda, a completely different story.
>
> The problem is not the judgement on the question if the contract is still
> valid. But there are other serious problems:
>
> 1. By claiming, that Linux is an illegal derivative of software SCO acquired, SCO threatend Linux as a whole... (a decision on the merits would also include if this was true or not...)

This is an idiotic claim as far as the linux open source movement is
concerned but in the light of that contract it might be different as far
as IBM is concerned.
>
> 2. If the strategy turns out to be profitable, this will repeat itself in various forms (Strategy meaning: Trade up stocks short-time by phantastic claims and profit from it without anyone countering it, making this an epensive move -> that's where we need IBM again or who do you think will pay?!)

Well, the contract between SCO and IBM is unique.
>
> 3. Other competitors might be dissuaded from copying IBMs strategy to embrace Open Source, providing further financial resources to developing the software, if this problem is not resolved...

I dont think so, but they will learn, maybe, that Linux is no argument to
break contracts that you have allready signed.
>
>
> >IBMs freedom is not mine.
>
> Sometimes it is, tiburon, if one would only notice.

Dont know tiburon and I loved the original tn3270 terminals more than
SCO or Caldera, but if they break contracts thats broken contracts
and thats their business.

Thats what I thought when I read your piece from findlaw, that IBM might
misuse Linux here, dont know, but I wasnt completely convinced.

Best, H.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> g
>




#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net