Where to for the little people [Was: Re: [NTLUG:Discuss] found this on SCO vs Linux]

[Tom Adelstein]

fredjame at concentric.net wrote:

> Tom Adelstein wrote:
>
>> fredjame at concentric.net wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Baker wrote:
>>>
>>>> fredjame wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> With the high degree of unlikelyhood that I would willingly go to 
>>>>> court against SCO on my own (assuming the old divide and conquer 
>>>>> MO), and the fact that I would be resistant to the idea of paying 
>>>>> SCO anything, I just glanced over my shelf and found that in Red 
>>>>> Hat releases, according to the boxes, version 7.0 contained kernel 
>>>>> version 2.2.16, and version 7.1 contained kernel version 2.4.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> According to the Linux Counter (www.linuxcounter.org) there are 
>>>> probably
>>>> around 18 million Linux users in the world - plus all those people who
>>>> have Linux in embedded devices.
>>>>
>>>> I think the odds of SCO making it around to dragging you into court 
>>>> are
>>>> pretty small.
>>>
>>>
>>> You missed the point - the speculation here is on "what if X 
>>> happens," not on the odds that X will happen, or even on the 
>>> specifics of X should it happen.
>>
>>
>> Exactly. This is the perception game. The operative term is "what if" 
>> or "Oh, my God".
>> This principle revivifies people's "I'm not okay" tapes and/or 
>> feelings of guilt. It's the basis of disinformation. The IRS has used 
>> this medium of psychological control for many decades.
>> "Don't cheat on your tax return - you'll get audited". And the odds 
>> of getting audited by the IRS? You'd have better odds playing the 
>> lotto. Yet, everyone knows somebody whose had an IRS audit.
>> That's why one needs to put a  gag in SCO's mouth. 
>
>
> We are straying "off topic" and off the point, but:
> (1)  In snipping my orginal message, one omitted part expressed my 
> desire to defeat SCO,
> (2)  "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" - so let us talk about 
> our "booggie men."
> (3)  I submit that one does have a "plan B", whether or not one made 
> it oneself.
> (4)  The core of many "isms" is the idea that the system will imporve 
> the people, which is entirely the cart before the horse.
> (5)  If we support the free speach, it is unfortunate but true:  SCO 
> will speak.  But then, so shall we, if we can. 


I can support items 1 - 4. Item 5 can use addition teasing out. I'm not 
sure that that SCO's actions qualify under the heading of free speach. 
If it did, I wouldn't consider taking legal action.

In fact, their abuse of the right to fair and free speach puts our 
rights at risk.

If you go by the original 1st amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of 
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to 
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Case law has clarified freedom of speech as "fair". Take the layers of 
fairness and other rights of individuals and fraud and deception in the 
conduct of trade plays a large part of abuse. The record doesn't provide 
SCO with the ability to alter the market by false claims.

This is not a matter of whether SCOis innocent until proven otherwise. 
They have the burden of proof. I don't believe they have the goods. 
Therefore, I challenge them.

I don't understand how discussing the future of Linux is off topic. Can 
someone enlighten me?