Posted on 04/29/2006 11:34:36 PM PDT by bigdcaldavis
I challenge you to find one statement of fact there about an SCO case that wasn't backed up by the court documents that are always posted. Groklaw is the best resource for information on these cases.
If Groklaw is such a joke, then was was SCO scared? SCO put up their own case resource pages to "counter" Groklaw, but it failed, since you can't counter facts with the same facts that are against you. In fact, SCO used Groklaw-produced documents on their own site (without giving credit to those who did the work, of course) while publicly trashing Groklaw. SCO also conspicuously misses posting damaging or embarrassing documents -- before it was the DaimlerChyrsler loss, now it's the "What the hell is taking so long" conversation with the judge in the Red Hat case. Groklaw has the transcript of the latter, SCO doesn't.
Groklaw has also served as an investigative resource, and has produced factual information quite damaging to SCO's case. For example, SCO said they didn't know IBM was doing AIX on POWER and wanted to make IBM's doing AIX on POWER part of their complaint, but Groklaw found SCO's own press releases touting AIX on POWER from long before the suit was brought. SCO was not allowed to bring that complaint.
The only thing you can claim about Groklaw is bias in the editorial, but you cannot claim lies or distortion of facts.
"you know good and well ShadowAce and others constantly link Jokelaw..."
We weren't talking about ShadowAce. We were talking about people who constantly link to Stallman.com, and you win that little contest, hands down. In fact, you're the undisputed champion of that. Constantly repeating but failing to prove is simply your standard way of admitting how much you continue to talk out of your a$$ on a daily basis.
"and one of your first posts to me ever..."
That's right. One post. If you think I'm wrong, again, you're more than welcome (and encouraged) to provide proof. You won't because you can't, and you know it. How many times have you linked to Stallman.com? How much traffic have you sent his way? Did you ever find any proof that I linked to anything Stallman other than the one time? No? Didn't think so. You remain a joke.
Give it up. You're trying to make a point, but the only one we see is on top of your head.
HA! How about the time SCO was being hit by denial of service attacks? Jokelaw claimed SCO was lying, and once the attacks were verified as real that they were even launching attacks on themselves. Of course a couple days later Eric Raymond admitted it was someone from the open source commmunity, to no surprise to anyone outside it.
Of course we do, because that's where the facts are. ShadowAce's latest posting from Groklaw had links to the document. And unlike SCO, Groklaw collates links to other relevant documents so you can better understand what's going on. That's probably why SCO doesn't do that -- better understanding makes SCO look bad.
http://www.stallman.org
And I'm going to keep linking it too, since people need to know what a fanatical leftist is behind the license of 80% of all open source software. If guys like me weren't around you'd still be linking it as the gospel.
Yes, you are going to keep linking to it, because it's easier to link to that than to anything that proves your wildly inaccurate allegations about me.
My original statement still stands, then. And you've just admitted that you were who I am talking about.
There's nothing wild about the fact that your first couple of posts to me were you linking the radical leftist's site to try to counter something I said. You were wrong in your argument then, too, of course.
Going for a tangent again?
Initial evidence pointed to something fishy, for example, they claimed to be getting a SYN flood, but no other servers on that subnet were affected (all would be down with a script kiddie attack, but this one was far more sophisticated than imagined at the time). Given SCO's documented history of lies, most people didn't put faking a DDOS for sympathy beyond them.
And Groklaw posted updates on the subject, admitting the DDOS was real. Honest people do that, so you wouldn't understand.
But that has nothing to do with the law in the cases, which you cannot challenge.
Of course a couple days later Eric Raymond admitted it was someone from the open source commmunity, to no surprise to anyone outside it.
Just because SCO acts dishonestly doesn't mean I think all software companies are like them.
And let me guess, you only read SCO's letter, which lied about the facts. I bet you still think Eric Raymond knew who the attacker was.
We're up to 80% now? And although you never were honest and retracted your previous statements, it appears now you no longer claim that Stallman has the copyright to all that software.
Of course, you've reverted back to lies before, so I wouldn't be surprised if you did it again.
It's the old debate of "free as in free speech" vs. "free as in beer". Certain codecs cannot be legally included unless royalties are paid to the intellectual creators/owners of said codecs. MP3 codecs are subject to this. And DVD codecs? Fuggedabouddit. Of course you can use Google to search for libdvdcss (in DEB Debian package format or RPM RedHat package format), but would you get in trouble for having that on your computer if Big Brother decides he has the right to search your hand drive for ANY illegal content and finds libdvdcss? Chances are yes because the stance the copyright police are taking these days is "mere possession of one single illegal music/software/movies is a federal offense", and the DMCA software (and it's proposed sequel DMCA II) were created simply to kiss the entertainment industry's collective ass.
The Stallman-quoting flamer........makes you wish the FreeRepublic forums included a "twit filter" option.
There is something wild about you having a question about the GPL, and me providing excerpts from the GPL, and then you portraying me as a Stallmanite, especially since you can produce no other posts where I link to Stallman, and I can produce numerous posts where you do.
Of course, don't let a little thing like logic or facts get in your way. You never do.
Keep spinning. You're not really saying anything about me, only about yourself, and it's hilarious that you don't even realize it.
We're all laughing at you.
LOL you're the one who claimed 80% of all open source uses the radical leftist license, not me.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1584107/posts?page=92#92
No different than Flamer, who complains about my links to the leftist site when some of the first posts he ever replied to me were linking it LMAO! You boys would like to run and hide now but you obviously can't, since you've been parroting and protecting Stallman all along.
If you can read this pos you are using software that uses stalmans license..
Lie. You don't even read the posts you link to. I said "I've heard up to 80%" in response to your %73 claim. I myself never claimed that number.
As I said then, I'd like to know where the stats come from. One source of OSS is SourceForge, which in the software search gives 73869 total projects (yet that conflicts with the 100,000+ claimed, so I'm probably missing something), of which 49894 are GPL and 8754 are LGPL. This actually gives 58648, about %79 at SourceForge, but not in the world in general.
Yeah, it was, whem you tried to claim no knowledge of where that figure came from, when as my link showed you were the actual source!
The link is no longer good. You can't support your claim. But I can support my claim that I did not claim 80% as you said I did. As usual, you lie.
LMAO, the link works perfect! You simply can't help but try to lie your way out of everything, can you.
I put my record of posting from Stallman.com up against yours any day. Any reason why you ignore the fact that you post from there on a regular basis, as I documented here?:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1624046/posts?page=16#16
You found one post from FSF where I was explaining the GPL, and you take that single post, which said nothing about Stallman, to paint me as a Stallmanite, while you continually project on others to hide the fact that you are actually steering a lot of people toward his site, no matter what you say your intentions are.
I'm beginning to get a full picture of you now. You love UN law usurping US sovereignty, via DMCA and the other UN "inspired" laws. You love steering people toward Stallman.com, and you love Microsoft's policy of dumping money hand over fist into China. You also support Planned Parenthood and offer a feeble dismissal when confronted with the fact that your money goes directly to the leftist causes and mine does not.
You are a leftist, through and through. There's overwhelming evidence pointing in that direction, and I can document all of it.
And so, when you attack, you are DEFINITELY projecting. You are a sad, sad little man, GE. You really need to give up the message board and find some real human companionship.
Looks to me like he's lying. He's desperately trying to twist your words into something he can argue with, rather than trying to argue with the facts (because if that happened, the argument would be over in two seconds).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.