It's quite old news, and Groklaw already covered it the last time: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040517002423242&query=+Alexis...

Here's the answer from some of the ppl Ken Brown claims to have spoken to:
Tanenbaum: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040522014416143&query=+Alexis...
Stallman: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040529153027629&query=+Alexis...
Swartz and Perens: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040611141310910&query=+Alexis...

Ken Brown is a liar because people.. ehm. M$ paying him money to do whoring business..

who give a damn if an individual uses a free software or a proprietary software, its a matter of choice. Linux didn't forced you to use and adapt it, it didn't force you to donate. Its there, its fashion and its free. So why make the trouble of making contradictive statements? Its already given out for free, its up to you to use it or not, but dont any judgementary opinions coz you dont understand it! CAN YAH DIG IT?!? SUCKA!!!!

Linus can kiss my @ss for helping destroy an industry.

ADTI mission is in opposition to the article posted on Linus.
Check out its mission statement
http://www.adti.net/mission.html

ps: Does anyone have rights over the binary number system

I can't wait for AdTI's next press release discussing how Windows was merely an imitation of the Xerox Star. Yes, any time now, wait for it ...

If all this hokey stuff really is Microsoft working through paid shills, it is
certainly would be a revealing admission they consider themselves pretty
incapable of competing on merit. It shows a marked preference for subterfuge
which appears to have earned a similar assessment of competency.

Hmm, I know this idea is not very popular but...

No, Linus did not 'father' Linux when it comes to ideas initially, he does when
it coems to code and to implementing those ideas.

Going from there to claiming he stole them is way too far tho, at that time
those ideas were well known and tought in schools and universities and had been
for a while really. They were also widely documented in many books, including
books from the peopel that this institute claims to have interviewed.

I think it is important however to se that distinction. This argument is going
to be repeated, and possibly by someone who does a better job at it

I for one would be interested to hear what Linus himself has to say about it. I
never caught him on being untrustworthy or lying, I do think I caught him a few
times on not caring too much about such claims, and somehow my feeling says that
he'd answer along the lines of 'I fathered the initial code, and we did the
rest' and lay no claims to the ideas.

Kenneth who named linux.. who has contributed enormous time to build the first complete kernel compile from GNU tools. who annouced the first kernel? and for that who should be credited as a father linux?

Kenneth who named linux.. who has contributed enormous time to build the first complete kernel compile from GNU tools. who annouced the first kernel? and for that who should be credited as a father linux?

Linus did imitate Unix as the press release charges, but the idea that imitation is "unscrupulous" is absurd. Word imitated Word Perfect. Excel imitated Lotus 1-2-3. Etcetera. I'm usually the first to question some of the more outrageous claims from the Linux community, so I feel compelled to blast such a transparent attempt to sully Mr. Torvald's name. Not even SCO has made such a claim. If Kenneth Brown wishes to make such claims, he definitely should be showing the evidence at the same time. To shamelessly make the claim only to sell more copies of his books or reports is unethical and immoral. At least SCO chose a forum sanctioned by the law in which to make it's claims. Unless Mr. Brown can back up his claims with evidence, he may very well find himself on the wrong side of the law.

Who has heard of the Linux Mark Institute - couldn't it sue these AdTI idiots?

Here's the LMI's mission:

The Linux Mark Institute ("LMI") is an organization established on behalf of the Linux® operating system community for the specific purpose of providing a simple means of licensing or sublicensing the use of the Linux registered trademark for use in connection with software and computer products, and other miscellaneous products related to the promotion of Linux. LMI is not designed to generate profits for anyone which is why Torvalds has given LMI primary sub-license rights for the mark. Its purpose is to protect legitimate uses of the LINUX trademark without burdening Linus Torvalds or any one entity with the financial responsibility of protecting the LINUX community's use of the mark.

Linus maybe needed an SIR - i.e., a non-profit that will work with Open Source developers to file Statutory Invention Registrations than can be used to prevent some of the patently silly behavior that's been going on recently.

I understand the process is cheaper than doing a full blown patent so it may not be as unreachable as it seems.

See: Types of Patents

Alexis de Tocqueville was a jackass and the institute that bears his name doesn't seem much better.

The Alexis de Tocqueville Institute is just a laughingstock of an institute that wants to be taken seriously.

The AdTI?!! This was the group that told us first that closed source was more secure than open source, and then "Open source software, also described as free software, is the neutron bomb of IP" - eugh!

I think many people fail to understand the value in free software in relation to the work that is involved in distributing it.

Patrick Volkerding doesn't require that you buy Slackware to use it. Nevetheless, I send him a $40 "donation" every year or two because I value his work in putting it together, and I hope that it coaxes him to continue the effort into the future. He mentions that his work on Slackware has always been a profitable endeavor since day one, even if it is on a small scale compared to other software products out there.

There are reasons for paying for something that's free. It's called "My ass is too lazy to download, compile, and configure an entire OS and its programs". Some people can't understand this concept because they've never understood anything other than traditional business models.

People say free software isn't capitalism, but free software IS capitalism. Everybody writing it is writing for entirely selfish purposes. Not every reward is money. I would estimate 99% of free software is written to boost the writer's ego and to gain admiration, and perhaps even to advertise their talents and get paid. Maybe 1% is written by somebody literally thinking they are improving the world.

The GPL is explicitly designed so that a persons creative efforts continue to belong to them, while still allowing maximum exposure and distribution and advertising.

If free software was not capitalism, it would be public domain.

Perhaps then the de Tocqueville Institute will produce a report on how illegally maintained monopolies can hurt the computer industry?

A famous Wired article called "Did MS Pay for Open-Source Scare?" 'outed' the AdTI a year ago. Here's the key passage:

A Microsoft spokesman confirmed that Microsoft provides funding to the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution.

"These folks really need to be more straight-forward about this," security researcher Richard Smith said. "Not commenting makes it appear as if they have something to hide."

as Clinton would say, "it all depends on what the meaning of 'invent' is"

Interesting how the AdTI disses Linus yet in its release carefully respects the Linux trademark owned by...Linus Torvalds.