Shoot the messenger

Hilarious stuff on Groklaw today. A reader writes in to ask PJ directly if she actually took money from OSDL and says, “If true, that does look rather whiffy. … I’d like to know if there’s substance in that particular allegation.” Naturally the poster is called a “troll.” Then PJ responds with her own comment in which she doesn’t answer the question but tries to make the whole thing about me. She suggests I’ve interviewed SCO officials and its lawyers, and that during these interviews, those people have told me things. Shocking! Of course I’ve talked to SCO and its lawyers. It’s what reporters do. (And yes, I’m so deeply entwined with SCO that their latest filing they identify me as a reporter at the Wall Street Journal. Yup, that’s how tight we are.)

From this PJ goes on to imply that I have taken SCO’s side in the lawsuit. Wrong. I’ve said over and over, I don’t care how the lawsuit turns out. I’m covering it, that’s all. I’d be happy to get information from IBM and/or its lawyers, but so far they haven’t been talking to the press. (At least that’s the official policy statement I get whenever I contact them with questions. PJ, however, seems to have had a knack for obtaining IBM filings before the public gets them.)

PJ’s response is the oldest dodge in the book and it doesn’t help her credibility. When faced with a question you don’t want to answer, shoot the messenger. Create a villain. “Don’t look here, look over there! Over there! At the bad guy!” Right. She’s the one who hit her sources up for money. She’s the one who’s ducking a subpoena. But I’m the bad guy because I’m reporting this. Most galling about all this is the comments from her readers claiming that I must be on someone’s payroll. It’s insulting. But also deliciously ironic.

Stallman says: Don’t use game consoles!

From the same Groklaw interview with Richard Stallman comes this wonderful gem of dialogue. Please note how the “reporter” agrees to do whatever Richard Stallman tells him, even when it’s something ridiculous like making his kids give up their game consoles. Stallman says it’s “unethical” for people to use game consoles because the code in those consoles is not “free.” (If only Nintendo would sign over its code to Stallman and the FSF so he could “protect” it and keep it “free,” then I guess we could use our Wiis in good conscience.)

Q: One final question. We’re seeing more and more devices, and I’m thinking specifically of games consoles — I know that my kids have one in the house — where there is no –

Richard Stallman: I wouldn’t. You have to learn how to say no to your kids.

Q: That’s true, that’s true, I wouldn’t deny it. Now, there is no free software at all for devices like this [correction: Yellow Dog supports some console(s)].

Richard Stallman: That’s why there is no possible ethical way you could use one, and so you shouldn’t have it.

Q: All right, I think I’ll take the kids out on the bike more often.

Richard Stallman: That would be much better for them.

Watch Richard Stallman duck and weave

This Q&A with a guy from Groklaw (see here) really provides a good sense of what it’s like to interview Stallman. He’s almost incapable of giving a straight answer to a straight question. He also refuses to tell what’s going on in the GPLv3 committee meetings:

Q: Very well. Free software has achieved considerable success since — in the sixteen years since the GPLv2 was published. GNU/Linux is big business now. Leaving aside Novell for the moment, have you experienced corporate pressure to influence the GPLv3 language?

Richard Stallman: Yes. And in some cases we’ve done what they wanted, and in other cases we’ve refused.

Q: Are there any specific cases you would want to talk about?

Richard Stallman: No.

But wait. I thought these guys were all about freedom, and transparency, and openness? I thought that’s what made the whole process so wonderful, that everyone could see exactly what was going on, at all times. Isn’t that why Linux is the greatest software program ever created? Because everyone can see the sausage being made and criticize every step?

Now suddenly Stallman won’t tell anyone who’s lobbying for what in the GPLv3? Combine this with the recent snarky comments from IBM’s Steve Mills about the FSF and the GPLv3 process and I think you can kind of connect the dots. IBM doesn’t like the way things are going and is leaning on Stallman big time. Stallman won’t dish because there’s still a chance he’ll cave to them and he doesn’t want it known that he buckled to IBM’s demands; instead he’ll claim it was his idea all along, or better yet, something that “the community” wanted.

You know. The “community.” ie, all those people who aren’t sitting in committee meetings and aren’t privy to what’s going on with that “free” software that Richard Stallman controls. Free as in “mine,” I guess, should be the new slogan.

 

 

Chris Stone, ex Novell, on the GPL

Here’s a guy who really believes in open source development but has grown disenchanted with the GPL and all the kookiness around it. Stone was vice chairman at Novell when the company was making its original push into Linux. He think Stallman and his followers aren’t doing anything to help Linux. See here.

Just a theory

Mull this over and see if it doesn’t kind of make sense.

Back in 2003, after SCO sued IBM, IBM put $50 million into Novell and promised to help promote Novell’s version of Linux to customers. At about the same time, Novell began raising a stink about whether SCO owned the copyrights to Unix. This slowed down SCO’s case against IBM and burdened SCO with all sorts of new legal costs. Was this a favor from Novell to IBM, its chief benefactor? One former Novell boss who spoke to me acknowledged in a “nudge nudge wink wink” way that it was.

But now Novell, under new management, makes a deal with Microsoft. IBM sees this as a threat. IBM’s proxies (RMS, Moglen, PJ) swing into action attacking Novell.

Novell’s current management wasn’t around when the IBM deal was made in 2003. Let’s presume they don’t feel obliged to help IBM fight its legal battles. And let’s presume they’re furious about the way IBM’s proxies (RMS, Moglen, PJ) have attacked Novell. Because make no mistake: These folks, who operate on IBM’s behalf, are trying to put Novell out of business.

But here’s the twist. Novell was involved in OSDL. They know where all the bodies are buried. Others from OSDL are also feeling bitter about how they were treated. They too know where the bodies are buried. They know who got what money from whom.

So SCO steps up and asks Novell to throw PJ under a bus. Novell is happy to oblige. Whether a judge will agree is another matter.

It’s not just PJ, by the way

IBM has bought off the entire pack of free software noisemakers. This includes Eben Moglen, Richard Stallman, the Software Freedom Law Center and the Free Software Foundation.

Consider this. Have you heard Stallman, Moglen, FSF or SFLC make a peep about IBM’s software-patent-related lawsuits against Amazon and PSI? Have you ever seen even a mention of these cases in the sidebar on Groklaw? Or even in comment strings?

The FSF folks claim to hate software patents. And they never miss a chance to protest about even the tiniest things. These are people who take to the streets in yellow jumpsuits over DRM in Microsoft products.

So ask yourself this: Why does IBM get a free ride?

The deal as it’s been described to me goes like this. IBM takes on SCO at great expense and presents this as a contribution to the community. They’re fighting a case that FSF and Moglen couldn’t afford to tackle. OSDL puts money into Moglen’s law center and into Groklaw. In return they get a free pass.

Please, before you write to me, go write to Stallman and Moglen and PJ and ask them why they’ve never criticized IBM over its use of software patents.

Moreover, take notice of the way these mouthpieces leap in to fight IBM’s battles. eg, Novell makes a deal with Microsoft; IBM is furious and feels betrayed, since it put all that money into Novell a few years ago; and suddenly the entire FSF apparatus swings into action. Moglen and Stallman rewrite the GPLv3 to screw Novell. Propaganda PJ starts attacking Novell on her blog.

The danger for IBM is that it’s risky business getting in bed with bomb-tossing loonies. In fact there are hints lately that IBM isn’t exactly thrilled about Stallman and his GPLv3 drafts. See this item on Barbara Darrow’s must-read “Unblog.”

Another favorite complaint

I’m getting email saying I’m involved in some kind of “smear campaign” because I’ve reported that PJ took money from OSDL and has been ducking a subpoena. How on earth is that a smear campaign? If I report that the Red Sox lost their season opener, is that a “smear” against the Red Sox?

Also: I love the way people will write and say that there is no connection between IBM and PJ. Their proof of this is that “PJ has said repeatedly that there is no connection.” Folks, think about that for a second.

My source on the OSDL payments is the guy who made the payments. He knows what he’s talking about. Don’t complain to me — go ask PJ about it.

As for ducking the subpoena, SCO filed notice on this back on Jan. 30. It’s been mentioned on PJ’s blog since early February in comment strings. Over and over again. Again, why bug me? Go bug PJ.

Is the Groklaw story now more interesting than the SCO case itself?

Okay that’s a rhetorical question. Answer: Yes, by a long shot. What really cracks me up is that every time I write anything about Groklaw I suddenly get loads of random emails from email addresses like “whatever@whatever.com” and “junkthing@hotmail.com.” They tell me all sorts of questions I should be asking SCO and point out all sorts of alleged flaws in my logic. They make straw man arguments where they say I’ve implied such-and-such and then they argue that such-and-such isn’t true. In other words, they leap through all sorts of hoops. But they never address the central point of whatever it is I’ve posted on my blog. Like, (a) what was PJ doing asking for (and taking) money from OSDL; and (b) why has PJ spent two months ducking a subpoena?

SCO desperately seeking PJ

They’ve made it official. See here. SCO apparently filed this document yesterday with the court, yet I haven’t seen a word about it on Groklaw. Once again I’m struck by Groklaw’s ability to just ignore things when it suits PJ’s bias. Like, um, PJ still hasn’t ever made a peep about IBM suing companies over software patents. And now this filing in which SCO says it wants to depose PJ. Has PJ just not noticed this filing? Strange since she never seems to miss anything in the SCO cases and recently even was able to point out some clerical errors that SCO’s law firm had made in a filing. I mean this lady watches SCO like a hawk. So how did she miss this? Well, maybe someone should make her aware of this filing since it mentions her by name. And to the folks who are writing in to ask me questions, please, use that same mad energy to ask your dear leader PJ how a legal expert rationalizes the fact that she’s ducking a subpoena. You might also ask her how a “journalist” makes a case for taking money from an organization she covers; and not just taking money from them but actually going to them and asking for it.

UPDATE: PJ has now mentioned this filing on her blog. She’s making a joke of it. And she swears she had no idea anyone was trying to serve her with a subpoena. Wow.