[DMCA-Activists] Torvalds on SCO and Stuff

[Seth Johnson]

(Forwarded from Pho list)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: pho: SJMN: Torvalds Q&A - SCO, Linux et al
   Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:12:34 -0400
   From: Kevin Doran <address@hidden>
     To: address@hidden

http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/news/local/6237239.htm

Posted on Fri, Jul. 04, 2003
Linux creator is an open source

Linus Torvalds is the creator of the Linux operating system, the open source
version of Unix that is sweeping  through the software world in a direct
challenge to Microsoft.

He spoke candidly with Mercury News Staff Writer Dean Takahashi about the
SCO Group vs. IBM lawsuit  (where Big Blue is accused of illegally putting
Unix code into Linux), on Microsoft and open source  development.

He also shed light on his decision to leave chip maker Transmeta for a Linux
corporate software consortium,  the Open Source Development Lab. Here is an
edited transcript:

Q: The SCO Group has sued IBM for illegally contributing Unix code to Linux.
Do you believe this episode  reveals any vulnerabilities in the open source
movement?

A: Not really. Open source software is very visible. That means it's very
easy to see if there is something  wrong. I think that is a good thing. I
think the whole point is that, with the kind of transparency you get with 
open source, people are a lot less likely to ever have intellectual property
issues. I compare it to stealing a car.  Do you steal a car in the bright
daylight with a lot of people around? Or do you steal a car, go for a
joyride at 4  am in the morning when there aren't a lot of people around.
With open source, there is a lot of daylight. A lot  of people looking at
the code. You don't really go around and steal things.

Q: There was some mention of the origins of Linux being murky.

A: There has been a lot of rumor. It's more of an allegation. It's complete
crap. Quite the reverse. If you look  at murky, it's SCO's allegations that
are murky. With Linux code, you can see how it's been developed. You  can
see who applied patches. You can see when they got applied. It's all in the
open.

Q: They were referring to the original creation of Linux.

A: No, it's not an issue. Some of the history might be slightly hard to
find, but compared to other projects, it's  a lot better documented than any
proprietary operating system ever. Most of the stuff that has been on
public  mailing lists is archived.

Q: How about the history of Unix itself. Is it hard to follow?

A: There was a lawsuit between AT&T and Berkeley. AT&T sued UC Berkeley for
copyright infringement  because the Berkeley version of Unix was made
available openly with the Berkeley license. It took a few years  but it was
shown that it wasn't Berkeley that stole code from AT&T but it was AT&T that
stole code from  Berkeley, removed Berkeley copyrights, and they ended up
settling out of court. So there is no judge that has  said so officially but
it was believed that Berkeley had done nothing wrong. This is the same code
at issue. In  that case, there was a clear genetic continuation. Now SCO is
trying to use the same code that already failed a  test once and to apply it
to something where there isn't the same genetic continuation.

Q: For our readers who don't know the origins of Linux, can you talk about
how it was written given the  existence of Unix?

A: The origin was all written by me. For the first six months or so I was
the only person working on Linux. It  took almost a year before there was a
major contribution from people outside. It's all original code since day 
one.

Q: The SCO Group has said that you haven't had the highest respect for
intellectual property rights. How do  you react to that?

A: That's very normal that you always try to twist the truth in lawsuits.
The only part that has been irritating  is they make it personal. They are
showing my e-mails to the Linux community to the press. They called my 
approach cavalier because I made a joke in an e-mail. OK. Tough. If they
can't take a joke, that's their  problem. I think it backfired. Most
journalists do have a sense of humor. They didn't mind.

Does it surprise you that Linux is a pawn in a battle between big companies,
like IBM and Microsoft?

No. I'm not surprised about lawsuits per se. When there is enough money
involved, lawsuits are inevitable. I  don't think that's anything strange.
To a large degree, and a reason I made it open source in the first place, 
was I was interested in the technical side, and not the legal and commercial
side. It's not a pawn that  somebody takes over. That's one of the points. I
find it interesting that people have used it in different ways  that I
didn't envision and also that they're raising issues that I don't care
about.

Q: What do you care about?

A: I still care about the technology and the community. The people putting
it together. And I do care about if  someone has actually copied stuff into
Linux that they don't have rights to, I'd be upset about that. I care  about
software rights. Right now I'm taking a leave. From what it looks like, as
long as it is contract rights  between SCO and IBM, I don't care at all. IBM
can defend themselves. And if IBM ends up having to say OK  we did something
bad, it's not my problem.

Q: Microsoft took out a license from SCO. Do you think that was necessary
and that the timing seemed  strange?

A: It's not exactly clear what they licensed. Most people see it as a PR
move. The enemy of my enemy is my  friend. I'm not a lawyer.

Q: Do you worry now that, regardless of who wins the lawsuit, that it will
do some damage to the adoption of  Linux?

A: What I worry most about is these things tend to drag out. If somebody
were to show this is what a judge  thinks about this case, I'm fairly
confident that Linux is OK. I worry that it will drag out forever.

Q: Can you tell us how Linux evolves?

A: It all boils down to hundreds of different groups. A group can be a huge
company that has an agenda. Or it  can mean one person at a university
working on a research project. They have their own thing they want to  fix.
All of these people make their modifications, and not all of them are
accepted. I see it as a kind of  ecosystem. You have survival of the
fittest. Some changes work better. Sometimes it is for purely technical 
reasons. It's just the right thing to do. Sometimes it is for personality
reasons. Some people who push their  changes are more likely to get things
done because they are nicer about it. It's not really centralized. I am at 
the center, but I don't direct any teams. All these people are trying to
pull me in different directions. Some  groups pull together in the same
direction. It's a very dynamic situation.

Q: Do you think it works well that you have the final say?

A: I think it works well because I don't have the final say. I have this
final say in my tree. It is special in that a  lot of people trust my tree.
So some people will not use it if it is not my tree. That is a minority. But
most  people end up using various appendages. My tree is really not. Yes I
have the final say on my tree. There is  always this forking but there is
always this joining. There is more forking than there is joining. But that
just  means that there are all these dead branches that not end up not being
interesting. My branch is to some  degree, you could think of it as the
trunk of the tree. People try to join back into my tree.

Q: Competitively, do you think this controlled chaos works against a company
like Microsoft?

A: I think it ultimately the only way to do software. I have arguments why.
The main one is the complexity  issue. It's very hard for someone who
doesn't work like this to keep control of an increasingly complex source 
base and increasingly complex user base. If you try to control the process
too much, you can go straight to the  end point where you want to go. That
works well if you know where the end point is. If you don't know where  it
is and you can't control where people want to use your software, it's a very
bad thing to have one branch  that is very concentrated on one line of
development. The best analogy is biological diversity. You have the  Linux
approach that is fairly diverse and all over the map. Maybe it is not very
efficient. But it works very well  in the face of complexity and changing
circumstances. Changing circumstances will really show that part of  that
diversity really works. Biology on the other extreme is a very mono culture,
which works very well as  long as the circumstances stay the same. To some
degree they are seen as very efficient and they can live on  for a long
time. A perfect case in genetics is sharks. They are very stable but they
also don't evolve anymore.  That works, but if you want to go past a certain
point, it's a problem.

Q: That's what Bill Gates is.

A: That's a fairly good analogy but sharks is a bad word. I should make up
another example. Turtles! Turtles  are very stable and have been around
forever. But they have problems adapting. When humans came along,  turtles
came under serious threat. The Dodo too. Biodiversity is good and I think it
is good in technology as  well. If you look at a lot of stable things, you
have a certain amount of biodiversity. Look at cars. The U.S. car  industry
was sloppy. There wasn't a lot of biodiversity. There no real competition
from true diverse species.  The Japanese came in and provided new diversity
for the market. It was a huge boon for the car industry,  though not so good
for certain countries. Cars started improving.

Q: If you look at how Microsoft is now struggling to deal with Linux, what
do you think?

A: They are not in trouble. I think they are struggling to deal with Linux
partly because Linux is undermining  them the same way they undercut their
competition. If you look at DOS, or maybe compilers, one thing that 
happened with Microsoft was that these small upstarts came out and had
cheaper compilers. DOS was also  cheap and it undercut the competition. They
never had a competitor like themselves. Then comes somebody  who undercuts
them and they start acting exactly how all of their competitors acted. If
you look at how Unix  vendors acted toward Microsoft, they were belittling
Microsoft. They were saying yes we're more expensive  but we're better and
we give better support. Whether that was true or not was not the point. The
reaction to  somebody coming in and undercutting you is for Microsoft
exactly the same as the failure mode for their  competitors. Microsoft is on
the receiving end of this undercutting.

Q: You have left Transmeta (the Santa Clara maker of low-power
microprocessors) where you worked for six  years. Now you've joined the Open
Source Development Lab (which is creating a version of Linux for 
corporations). Can you explain why you took the leave of absence?

A: It's a number of reasons. One was for the last six months I was spending
a lot of time working on the next  2.6 release of Linux. We're getting
close. But I expect it to take a few more months at least. This happened 
before with other releases. I don't like doing releases but we have to do
them. Before releases you get into a  painful mode. Transmeta has been very
good to me. This time I felt I'd have a hard time bouncing back to the 
Transmeta work. I was feeling more guilty about that. I talked to a lot of
people there. They knew how I  worked. The OSDL thing came along. I asked
about that position when I decided I needed to leave. It was a  neutral
place. I need to concentrate on Linux. Why not let somebody pay me for that?
I can't go to a Linux  vendor like Red Hat because I would no longer be seen
as neutral.

Q: With Transmeta, their plan didn't work out as expected. Did that affect
your decision to leave them?

A: A lot of companies share that problem. I don't know. What made it easier
to leave now was that it seems to  have stabilized lately. We didn't have
the panic problems we had. That made it easier and I didn't feel like I  was
a rat leaving a sinking ship. The fact that it didn't worked out affected a
lot of my co-workers more than it  did me. I ended up being able to cash in
on my dream. It happened in a strange way. But I got my house in the  area.
In that sense it didn't affect me. Because the Transmeta dream didn't work
out, it has less resources to  do fundamental research. It has to
concentrate on the customers and the products. For me, because I'm 
interested in the crazy stuff, that made Transmeta maybe not as fun as it
was five or six years ago. Five or six  years ago we did stuff at Transmeta
that universities didn't do. We did fundamental research. That made 
Transmeta a very special place.

Q: You want to concentrate on going after one monopoly at a time?

A: (Laughs). I never saw Intel as a monopoly. It has competition. To me
personally, Intel has always had a  healthier position. A lot of people
thought, yeah, he's always going after the big guys. That wasn't the point
of  being at Transmeta. I want to do something that is relevant, and if it
is relevant there is always somebody else  out there.

Q: Do you see any boundaries for Linux? Do you want to go after Wind River
and other companies in the  embedded software space?

A: That is a traditional company question. If you're a company, you want to
go after certain markets. The  point of open source is there is no such
thing as certain markets you go after. It's more like certain companies  use
Linux to go after a market. The embedded space has been very receptive to
Linux. It's not like Wind River  doesn't exist, but Linux is growing.

Q: Did it surprise you that IBM, this big giant company, embraced Linux?

A: I always thought IBM was interesting. Early on in 1998 and 1999, a lot of
people were going through the  motions of embracing Linux. They would
mention it in a press release. But IBM always followed through.  Because I
was never interested in the commercial market, I never found fault with how
people used Linux  there. I enjoyed that IBM started porting Linux to the
S390, found that hugely amusing. I thought, OK,  somebody has done a few too
many drugs. But it ended up being a master stroke. The people who started
it  just did it because they found it interesting. It ended up working out
really well.

Q: You mentioned you wanted to end up at a neutral space. Do you feel like a
religious leader? Or what kind  of leader do you see yourself as?

A: I try to avoid that. I think I've been fairly successful. Some of the
free software people don't like how I'm  not very religious. I try to be
pragmatic. People know that. At the same time I have a very high profile
and  because people trust me and want to continue to trust me and I want
people to trust me, I want to make sure  that there is nothing that has the
appearance of being bad. Going to work for a specific Linux company would, 
even if I work the way I've always worked, it would still look like I was
favoring one vendor over another. You  can't avoid it in the environment
we're in.. I want to make sure everyone sees that I'm neutral. They may 
disagree with me and quite often they do. But at least they know I'm not
working for the competition. I may  not care about their viewpoint, but they
know I do it for my own personal reasons. That makes people a lot  more
accepting. That makes it easier for me to make decisions. People will accept
those decisions more if they  understand they are my personal decisions and
not because I am trying to screw them over as a competitor. It  gives me
more authority. That's the only authority I have. I don't have legal rights.
I have one special right  since I started Linux as the owner of the
collective copyright. From a license standpoint I don't have any  special
rights.

Q: What about cashing in on Linux? Where do you stand on where it is
appropriate for you to make money  from Linux?

A: I'm cashing in in the sense that I have a good salary. I did get stock
options and I accepted them when  there were no strings attached. In the
good old days there were a few Linux companies that gave me stock  options
as a thank-you. Nobody thought they would be worth that much when they gave
them to me. I bought  a house in this area so they were worth a lot. I'm
doing OK. I'm not a Larry Ellison. There only needs to be  one.

Q: You moved from Finland. How do you like living in Silicon Valley.

A: Some parts I love. I have a convertible. I will never ever move to a
place where I can't drive a convertible. I  like the dynamics. Sometimes
it's sad how you go into a random restaurant and all the tables around you
talk  about technology. At the same time, it is nice to be where you
understand the people. Genetically maybe not  very homogenous. But
perspective wise, it's a nice place to be. It's too crowded. It's too
expensive.

Q: And what about the bust?

A: Everybody was expecting it. Everybody was calling it a bubble. The people
who now complain about it.  They didn't complain two years ago. What I think
is sad is the people who came here two years ago, just as the  bust was
starting, had jobs for not very long, got laid off, and had to move back.
They changed their lives.  That's nasty. I remember it took me four years to
get a green card. The people who came in at the wrong time,  they had to go
back. The social issues there are huge.

Q: Any irony that you might be deposed by (SCO counsel) David Boies, who led
the case against Micosoft?

A: I was a bit surprised. I realize that David Boies wasn't against
Microsoft. It's that he likes high-profile cases  against big companies.
That's what he specializes in. In that sense, SCO vs IBM makes sense. It's a
nice twist  but it doesn't mean anything.

Contact Dean Takahashi at address@hidden or (408) 920-1902 .

-- 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

address@hidden
201.892.8393
PO 1257
Hoboken NJ 07030
http://members.aol.com/kevindoran/info.html

-- 

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org

[CC] Counter-copyright: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cc/cc.html

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of
this incidentally recorded communication.  Original authorship should be
attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for
usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.