[PLUG] Crimes and Justice against SCO and Microsoft

[Keith Lofstrom]

I'm going to hang it out here, and possibly incite a flame war.
This may be a really stupid thing to do, and get me banned from 
the list.  I hope not;  what *intend* to do is to prove that we
are civilized, responsible adults.  So cross your fingers ...

In the latest EEtimes, the article "'Electronic terror' in Linux's
shadow" ( http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20040202S0032 ) reacts to
the MyDoom virus, as well as the threats against SCO's Darl McBride
and the folks that have spoken out in support of the SCO position. 
The article point out that many people that hold the Linux community
as a whole responsible for MyDoom, even though the person or persons
responsible are a very tiny subset and unrepresentative subset of the
whole community.  The article then goes on to discuss the death threats
against McBride and various journalists and analysts that offer any
shred of support for the SCO position.  The article says that the
Linux community consists of about 80% practical-but-not-political
users of Linux, 10% evangelists, and 10% nut cases. 

Most of us in PLUG probably shade towards evangelist, but there is
a risk of falling into the nut case category.  What I want to do
here is to draw a line between evangelist and nut case.  For the
following list, I will refer to "SCO and Microsoft" as "S&M" for
short.  Here's some places to draw the line (oversimplified, it
is a multidimensional space):

0) I love S&M.  You Linux people are silly.

1) Don't offend anybody.  Say nothing about S&M.  Just smile and
help people run Linux.

2) Participate in efforts to expose S&M faults, and support IBM
and others in the lawsuit, but otherwise promote caution and
avoid suggesting any kind of reactive measure.

3) Participate in active legal attacks on S&M.  Make rude remarks
about the companies, their principals, and their customers.

4) Engage in victimless but illegal attacks on S&M, such things as
posting secret sources to the net or hacks of license code.  Here
"victimless" is in the sense of causing annoyance or thwarting 
expectations, but not in terms of leaving systems useless or 
people physically hurt.

5) Make threats of physical damage;  destroying data, breaking
machines.

6) Make threats of personal damage against DMcB or BG.  

7) Actually launch physical/network attacks - i.e. MyDoom .

8) Actually launch personal attacks - i.e. break legs, pistol whip.

9) Kill anti-Linux principals.

Obviously, different ratios of network/spoken/physical threat can be
imagined, but the above scale works as a starting point.  

I imagine we have amongst us folks with opinions ranging from (1)
to (6).  I don't think we have any (0) or (7-9) folks.  

Myself, I am comfortable with (1) through (3), and waver between
(2) and (3) in my own behavior - that is, every legal activity,
in good or bad taste.

If I encountered (0) or (4), I would admonish.  If I encountered (5)
and (6), threats of physical or personal damage, I would counter
with threats of exposure.  If I encountered (7) through (9), actual
illegal attacks, I would call the cops and help with investigations. 
If I saw somebody trying to kill Bill Gates, I would use lethal
force to prevent it if necessary (then call in a BIG favor).

All that said, I have been known to mouth off to levels as high as
(6) myself, sometimes.  Jokingly making threats.   MyDoom has made
this a "not funny any more".  Times have changed.  I am smart
enough to think up different jokes.  

The MyDoom virus is the first time that someone who claims
membership in our tribe has used that as an excuse to perform
widespread vandalism, level (7) on the above scale.  For many
people among the vast majority that is NOT our tribe, that is
their first concious impression of Linux.

That is a *lousy* way to get people's attention, IMHO.   A half
dozen of those, and we are not just ignored but actively suppressed.
I think that on act may have cost us a few months of progress. 

But opinions likely differ.  Maybe attention of any kind is good.
Maybe the rightness of our cause justifies any act.  However, if
that is the majority opinion, I'm outta here.  

I'm wondering where the rest of you stand.  Indifference?
Quiet? Active? Illegal? Damage? Murder?  What would you do,
and what would you tolerate, and what would you punish ?

What do YOU think?  We will get some silly/joking answers to this
question - please help me keep this thread on track by ignoring
those.  The folks making the jokes are worried too.  Let's get
some opinions out there, and avoid the flames while we learn the
feelings of the group.  Perhaps some of the debate can occur at
the Lucky Lab on thursday.

Keith

And forgive the long rant - this is a tricky subject, and definition
may help avoid some misunderstandings.

-- 
Keith Lofstrom           keithl at ieee.org         Voice (503)-520-1993
KLIC --- Keith Lofstrom Integrated Circuits --- "Your Ideas in Silicon"
Design Contracting in Bipolar and CMOS - Analog, Digital, and Scan ICs