Re: [tlug] Re: is there a real possibility that Sco get what it c laims?

[Shawn <javajunkie@example.com>]

    *But* we can not
>     Raymond> deny that there are such things as "moral obligations" in
>     Raymond> this universe, whether or not we all agree about what
>     Raymond> they are.   Of course it's your right to disagree with 
> others' ideas of what the
> obligations are, but claiming that one whose ideas you disagree with
> denies the existence of moral obligations puts _you_ outside the pale.
> No need for a jury; convicted by your own words, as it were.  So, if
> (as I believe) you were not really implying such a claim, why did you
> bring it up?  (Bad habit, is my guess.  It would be a good idea to
> break it.)
>
> So, of course there are moral obligations.
>
> What you and Shawn are advocating, from the point of view of free
> speech, is removing the _listener's_ moral obligation to distinguish
> fact from fiction, and placing the entire burden on the speaker.

Yes, I agree that you are correct to point that out.  The listener has a 
burden that needs to be shouldered at well.

>   What's the harm
> in letting Darl hold press conferences?
>

"It is not good practice to attempt to force people to buy from you what 
you may not own. It is even worse practice to mislead investors into 
thinking that they will benefit from such sales without disclosing that 
you may not own what you are trying to sell." -Eben Moglen, professor of 
law at Columbia University Law School

At some level, investors need to be protected from false statements by 
companies.  If now is not the time, then when would be?

Darl is sreaming "fire -- buy a license or be faced with  intentional 
copyright infringement".  He knows very well it is really questionable if 
SCO even has such a right.

I am not advocating that Darl be muzzled, I can just say I understand that 
Germany muzzled him pending clarification of the issues involved and 
believe that seems sensible.

You are correct in that investors and users of Linux have a responsibility 
to discern the facts for themselves.  I can not dispute that.  Would you 
dispute that Darl is trying to swindle people.  Are you asserting that 
attempted swindling be legal?  Is it only a crime when successful?  Until 
he has a green light on ownership, he is engaging in blackmail to up his 
revenue.  Should that be allowed under "free speech"?  I would assert no-- 
he has plenty of time to get his revenues once ownership is clear.
-- 
Shawn

Happily using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: 
http://www.opera.com/m2/