4 ms·

I dunno. I've known IBM's primary copyright counsel (Terry Ilardi) for many years, and he's very friendly to open source (and very smart). I suspect there is m

I dunno. I've known IBM's primary copyright counsel (Terry Ilardi) for many years, and he's very friendly to open source (and very smart). I suspect there is more to this story than meets the eye. Reading the reddit, etc, it's really unclear what the history is. I read the DMCA request, which seems straightfoward, and the counternotice, which reads like someone who probably shoudl have consulted a lawyer (it makes legal claims about their non-disclosure/etc obligations) :P Even looking at wikipedia, it looks ... complicated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_LSF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_LSF) Given a counternotice was filed, it's also not clear what is getting shutdown and why (IE lack of details), etc. Lot of panic, little details.

xenadu02 10y ago
That doesn't square with Shawn Starr's statement. He worked at Platform Computing before the IBM acquisition. Part of their code was packaged for Linux and relicensed as GPLv2 in partnership with RedHat. All OpenLava work as been based on that GPL'd code and developed in the open. Unless you're claiming the Platform Computing partnership with RedHat was unauthorized and somehow concluded without management approval it would appear IBM doesn't have a leg to stand on. The history of OpenLAVA used to be available for everyone to see, though thanks to Ilardi's team that is no longer true.
- DannyBee 10y ago
  "That doesn't square with Shawn Starr's statement." It actually does, because there is nothing anywhere, that gives enough detail to say anything really. There are a lot of claims, but not a lot of facts. Shawn says he was authorized to package something under the GPLv2. The rest is just opinion. For example, you have no idea what any of the IP agreements involved said. Seriously. IBM is generally too meticulous, and not stupid enough, to be in a situation where they have no leg to stand on. They were the ones who went through hundreds of thousands of pages of documents to prove SCO didn't own the copyright. I think it's a bit naive to, based on a statement from one guy who did some packaging work, that IBM has no leg to stand on. In fact, a bit of Googling turns up a counterpoint: http://www.law360.com/articles/850910/ibm-sues-startup-for-allegedly-stealing-software-code http://www.law360.com/articles/850910/ibm-sues-startup-for-a... Note: IBM claims some IBMers stole code when they left IBM, and then illegally incorporated it later into the open source project. Not that the original code was not GPLv2'd validly. Note also: David, the person making the claim here, works/worked (it's a bit hard to tell if he is still employed there) for the company IBM is suing.
  - xenadu02 10y ago
    Fair enough, maybe it is all stolen code.
    - DannyBee 10y ago
      FWIW: IBM appears to have been fairly careful in the DMCA request. It only requests versions 3.0+ be taken down ("The Infringing Software, which includes each branch of "openlava" starting with at least version 3.0, is available at the following online locations:"). The code has been available on github since 1.0 So they most certainly have some specific set of code they think is taken. See https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2016/2016-10-17-IBM.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2016/2016-10-17-I...
  - paradite 10y ago
    This is also consistent with the reddit comment here: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/5j3mn2/ibm_is_trying_to_bully_the_openlava_project_a/dbdgaul/ https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/5j3mn2/ibm_is_trying...
    - DannyBee 10y ago
      That's because i wrote that comment :)
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - tomcam 10y ago
      Why on earth would this get downvoted? It's one of the most substantial posts I've ever seen on any site, no exaggeration.
  - webmaven 10y ago
    > Seriously. IBM is generally too meticulous, and not stupid enough, to be in a situation where they have no leg to stand on. Are you not familiar with IBM's history of shaking down smaller players?: http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Sun_Microsystems_inc.#Paying_IBM_for_nothing http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Sun_Microsystems_inc.#Paying_IBM_fo...
akerro 10y ago
> I dunno. I've known IBM's primary copyright counsel (Terry Ilardi) for many years, and he's very friendly to open source (and very smart). Apparently, you don't know him good enough.
- mSparks 10y ago
  apparently they dont know a certain female vocalist good enough. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DmTiYLJ1WTU https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DmTiYLJ1WTU and for those of you who live in a bubble. and need tech oriented comedy explaining to you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

xenadu02 10y ago

That doesn't square with Shawn Starr's statement. He worked at Platform Computing before the IBM acquisition. Part of their code was packaged for Linux and relicensed as GPLv2 in partnership with RedHat. All OpenLava work as been based on that GPL'd code and developed in the open. Unless you're claiming the Platform Computing partnership with RedHat was unauthorized and somehow concluded without management approval it would appear IBM doesn't have a leg to stand on. The history of OpenLAVA used to be available for everyone to see, though thanks to Ilardi's team that is no longer true.

DannyBee 10y ago
"That doesn't square with Shawn Starr's statement." It actually does, because there is nothing anywhere, that gives enough detail to say anything really. There are a lot of claims, but not a lot of facts. Shawn says he was authorized to package something under the GPLv2. The rest is just opinion. For example, you have no idea what any of the IP agreements involved said. Seriously. IBM is generally too meticulous, and not stupid enough, to be in a situation where they have no leg to stand on. They were the ones who went through hundreds of thousands of pages of documents to prove SCO didn't own the copyright. I think it's a bit naive to, based on a statement from one guy who did some packaging work, that IBM has no leg to stand on. In fact, a bit of Googling turns up a counterpoint: http://www.law360.com/articles/850910/ibm-sues-startup-for-allegedly-stealing-software-code http://www.law360.com/articles/850910/ibm-sues-startup-for-a... Note: IBM claims some IBMers stole code when they left IBM, and then illegally incorporated it later into the open source project. Not that the original code was not GPLv2'd validly. Note also: David, the person making the claim here, works/worked (it's a bit hard to tell if he is still employed there) for the company IBM is suing.
- xenadu02 10y ago
  Fair enough, maybe it is all stolen code.
  - DannyBee 10y ago
    FWIW: IBM appears to have been fairly careful in the DMCA request. It only requests versions 3.0+ be taken down ("The Infringing Software, which includes each branch of "openlava" starting with at least version 3.0, is available at the following online locations:"). The code has been available on github since 1.0 So they most certainly have some specific set of code they think is taken. See https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2016/2016-10-17-IBM.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2016/2016-10-17-I...
- paradite 10y ago
  This is also consistent with the reddit comment here: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/5j3mn2/ibm_is_trying_to_bully_the_openlava_project_a/dbdgaul/ https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/5j3mn2/ibm_is_trying...
  - DannyBee 10y ago
    That's because i wrote that comment :)
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - tomcam 10y ago
    Why on earth would this get downvoted? It's one of the most substantial posts I've ever seen on any site, no exaggeration.
- webmaven 10y ago
  > Seriously. IBM is generally too meticulous, and not stupid enough, to be in a situation where they have no leg to stand on. Are you not familiar with IBM's history of shaking down smaller players?: http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Sun_Microsystems_inc.#Paying_IBM_for_nothing http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Sun_Microsystems_inc.#Paying_IBM_fo...

akerro 10y ago

> I dunno. I've known IBM's primary copyright counsel (Terry Ilardi) for many years, and he's very friendly to open source (and very smart). Apparently, you don't know him good enough.

mSparks 10y ago
apparently they dont know a certain female vocalist good enough. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DmTiYLJ1WTU https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DmTiYLJ1WTU and for those of you who live in a bubble. and need tech oriented comedy explaining to you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect