Groklaw has been a big part of my life since 2003 when SCOG tried to sue the world for using GNU/Linux. Pamela Jones responded with the truth and SCOG’s FUD went “Thud!”. Now SCOG is no more and PJ is retiring in May from publishing articles.
“There will be other battles, and there already are, because the same people that propped SCO up are still going to try to destroy Linux, but the battlefield has shifted, and I don’t feel Groklaw is needed in the new battlefield the way it was in the SCO v. Linux wars. “
Amen, and thank-you PJ. The world has changed a lot since 2003. GNU/Linux has increased usage many times over on servers and perhaps 30-fold on the desktop and now there is Android/Linux, triumphing over the forces of evil which overcharge for lack of choice, not scarcity. Between Moore’s Law, Linux and ARM, the world of IT is a much healthier place than when SCOG attacked. Technically SCOG v IBM is still on hold but with SCOG gone, that should be mostly moot. Novell never did get paid for the money “converted” by SCOG and now Novell is being sold. I believe Groklaw influenced many to give GNU/Linux the benefit of a doubt and make better use of IT.
I have been amazed at the volume of writing PJ has produced and intricate detail of her connecting the dots and the fact that she was often proven correct when others trumpeted that she was silly. PJ kept the faith.
Whether Google, IBM and RedHat will step up to defend against attacks on Linux/FLOSS strongly enough to keep PJ in retirement remains to be seen. I imagine she has too much energy not to adopt some other projects. I have been weary often from working on my little blog. Her project has given focus to many thousands of freedom-loving geeks. Even the lawyers in the cases covered in her blog referred to Groklaw in court.
In SCOG v Novell, Maureen O’Gara was questioned about writing an article about PJ. This is part of her testimony:
“A. PJ is the purported author of the Groklaw site.
Q. What is the Groklaw site?
A. It is a website that follows the SCO case — I should say cases, maybe, but —
Q. And then you did, in fact, write a story about PJ or Pamela Jones, didn’t you?
Q. So, in 196, Stowell says in the subject line, “I need you to send a jab PJ’s way,” and that’s March 30 2005?
Q. And 197 is your May 9 to 13, 2005 issue of Client Server News 2000, correct?
MR. JACOBS: Your Honor, Novell moves into evidence D-14.
MR. NORMAND: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It will be admitted.
(Novell Exhibit D-14 received in evidence.)
Q. And the lead story is Who is Pamela Jones?
Q. Is there — is there a causal relationship between Blake Stowell’s e-mail to you and the appearance of the story in Client Server News 2000, May 9 to 13, 2005?
Q. You did it independently? You did the story on PJ —
A. I have reason to do a story on Pamela Jones that has nothing to do with SCO.
Q. And, in your — in that article you said, “A few weeks ago, I went looking for the elusive harridan who supposedly writes the Groklaw blog about the SCO v. IBM suit.” “
SCOG tried every trick in the book to try to get PJ discredited but they failed miserably.
So, thank-you, PJ. Good luck in your future endeavours.
see also SJVN’s kind comments.