Slashdot Mirror

Fortunately a level-headed and informative review of the case (which puts a different light on it) is available here http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200603110 7414764

Recommended!

Guilty as sin! Here's the rest of the story from GrokLaw:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200603110 7414764/

Tivo uses Linux, and they use DRM to make sure nobody runs anything else than their version of Linux on the box.

So what? Why do so many people have their panties all knotted up over this? "OMG, teh 3V1L!!!1!!" I mean, grow up already.

The same people who so often bitch and moan about companies spreading FUD are now themselves the source of so much FUD surrounding this whole Tivo thing. "They're twisting the intent of the GPL. They're skirting their moral obligations, defiling the holy GPL."

Look here for a quaint example of a community FUD fest:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200603091 25458516

What a bunch of bullshit. I think I'll start calling them GPL thumpers.

The GPL is a legal document, and it clearly states it's intent: Modify this source and distribute, and you have to make the source (with modifications) available. You yourself acknowledge that the Tivo sourcecode is available. Tivo is in compliance.

Exactly what legal obligation according to the GPL version 2 is Tivo failing to abide by? They are not required to make hardware that anyone can modify at will. They are not required to build a cheap HTPC platform for you to run MythTV on. They are not required to submit code changes back to the original project.

What Tivo has "failed" to do is live up to your "I am better then thou" idealistic notion of how a good free software user should behave. And if the guy who ACTUALLY WROTE THE CODE doesn't think it's out of line? Oh, well, he can't be right (thump thump) just think of the GPL (thump thump) have to protect the GPL (thump thump thump).

Linus likes the fact that Tivo uses Linux, and it makes him sad that they would stop using it. Thus, he opposes GPL version 3.

Linus likes the fact that anyone uses linux. Linus' whole point about the laser sharks is that he wants everyone to be free to use his code any way they want, no matter if he thinks it's right or wrong (laser sharks being used to represent wrong, since many peoples brains obviously shut off at the mention of DRM. There was a /. story on this condition). Linus says he doesn't like that Tivo DRM locked their hardware, but to him that's just how they chose to use linux, which he feels they are free to do as long as they abide by the license terms of the GPL version 2. To him, freedom is important.

And THAT is why Linus didn't like the draft of GPL version 3, because it removed peoples freedom to use the software. "Free" software my ass, the FSF and the rest of these GPL thumpers preaching the righteous way of freedom are suddenly interested in controlling how others use "their" software. You're free, as long as you don't do what I don't like.

With GPL version 3, is seems we will have to stop saying "free as in freedom" and start saying "free as in compliance" instead. Doesn't quite have that nice ring to it. I wonder why...

I wonder if the same analyst sold them the idea to bankroll SCO in their litigation with IBM over Linux...

At the end of the presentation, Andreas Pleschek revealed that the laptop he used for the presentation was running a pre-release of their new platform, the Open Client. It is actually a Red Hat work station with IBM's new Workplace Client, which is built in Java on top of Eclipse. Because of Eclipse, it runs on both Linux and Windows, and they have been able to reuse the C++ code in Lotus Notes for Windows to run it natively on Linux via Eclipse. Internally in IBM, for years, they have had a need to run Lotus Notes on Linux, and now they can. And they will offer it to their customers. Workplace uses Lotus Notes for mail, calendar, etc. and Firefox as their browser. For an office suite, they use OpenOffice.org.

But there is video.

Or this one in case the first is overloaded.

(Groklaw article where I took the links from is here.)

As you can see from Groklaw's article on this, the answer is no. The costs do not change merely because one uses the GPL. SOX is a royal pain in the ass to comply with, true, but GPL software isn't any more problematic than software released under other licenses.

Quoting a response by the Software Freedom Law Center:

the latest Software Freedom Law Center white paper maintains ... these issues were reviewed and it was found that there is in fact no special risk for developing GPL'd code under SOX. "Under most circumstances, the risk posed to a company by SOX is not affected by whether they use GPL'd or any other type of software. Arguments to the contrary are pure anti-GPL FUD [fear, uncertainty and doubt]," the paper says.

"No, the software industry was big and healthy and patentless before the mid-nineties."

Ugh, no. There were many patent disputes in the 1980's. The Cadtrak XOR patent is one of the most famous ones. Cadtrak collected millions of dollars during the 1980s from companies that it found infringing on the patent.

Ironically, I am also the victim of one of the most notorius software patents: The infamous "XOR Cursor" patent, #4,197,590, filed in 1978 and granted in 1980. Way back in 1976, while a student at UC Davis, I built a computer terminal for NASA that used an XOR to move the cursor around the screen. The work was published in an obscure NASA journal. Only recently did I learn that Cadtrak has collected large sums of money and successfully defended patent #4,197,590 against a number of claims, on something I invented as a sophomore computer-engineering student. Talk about "obvious to anyone versed in the art." Had our work for NASA been more widely published, or if I'd worked in a job where I might have run into the Cadtrak controversy, Cadtrak would probably have lost the patent. Instead, I only found out about the XOR patent last year, after it had expired.

From: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=2004 101107275739

There are many other examples of software patent disputes in that first decade of software patents. Refac shut down Apple's HyperCard program because of a patent dispute, and there was a dispute between AT&T and the X Consortium about the "backing store" method, which was developed and used at MIT.

See: http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Links/prep.ai.mit.edu/pike.d emo for more on the backing store.

The League of Programming Freedom (http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/) is a good resource for information on software patents.

The software industry was growing very quickly before 1981 without software patents, so the point is still valid, although the parent's timeline is a bit off. Currently the largest companies all have so many software patents that there is almost a situation of mutually assured destruction preventing any of the "big names" from filing lawsuits against each other.

"Open Source software received a boost, yesterday, wth the announcement that nine government departments are piloting Open Source platforms .. such as Newham Borough Council"

"Cap Gemini .. is carrying out an audit of Newham's IT systems with the objective of showing that Newham's TCO using Microsoft software will be lower than if it goes open source. The exercise is being funded by Microsoft."

'a statement issued by Newham today says that the London borough "has concluded that, in the short term, significant cost savings are not achievable by switching to strategy based-upon Open Source software.'

Any /.'ers have more info about Microsoft's format?

Get thee to Groklaw, my curious friend. The debate, along with fine technical details are found there.

On the other hand, the consortium (if you will) proposing a universal open document standard sounds more open and the proof will be in the implementation. Still, I'd like to know more specifically what that standard proposal is in detail.

The implementation is here. It's called "ODF," the "Open Document Format." It is the default file format of the Open Office suite of applications; KOffice is also moving (or *has* moved, I'm too lazy to look) to that format, as well. IBM's office suite will implement ODF.

Again, Groklaw has a lot of information, including pointers to the official specification.

Oh good! A contest...

Here are some Microsoft misbehaviors

Groklaw later posted a story on it, btw, pointing out the conflict of interest. Or at least, paid propaganda masquerading as a guide in the public interest. Disgusting really.

1: Game search results and charge companies to make them appear first.

2: Make ads for Microsoft Products, come up 1st, appear slightly larger etc.

3: Use flash ads and or other distractions.

4: Cram as many ads in as possible, making stealth links that seem like answers but really always take you some service that is paying MS. Ala http://www.experts-exchange.com/

5: Use their bundled search engine that Vista will assuredly be hard coded to use, to apply pressure on companies who have paid for #1 to only work with Windows, or in the case of tech journals, promote MS FUD, Maket MS Crap, do their dirty work.

It's in their DNA , it starts with the view that the unwashed masses are all below them and are only good for getting money from.

As PJ from Groklaw says:

Here's the scoop, although I don't know if the New Zealand government is aware of it. Chapman Tripp works for Microsoft.

This may be redundant but just in case...
Here's the Groklaw article.

• Advising Microsoft Corporation on digital copyright, parallel importation and copyright enforcement issues, including submissions to the Ministry of Economic Development and the select committee.
• Advising on copyright and intellectual property issues for a range of clients including ACP Media and Microsoft Corporation.
• Acting as general counsel for Microsoft Corporation on its anti-piracy campaign in New Zealand, including conducting copyright infringement litigation generally.
• Acting for Microsoft on a range of issues and transactions including the computers in schools project with the Ministry of Education.
• Advising clients on the design, build and leasing of key premises including the head offices of Microsoft Corporation, Siemens, Fonterra Co-operative Group, Hertz Fleet Lease and AMP Bank.
• Advising Microsoft Corporation on software copyright infringement actions and its nation-wide schools licensing programme.
• Advising Microsoft Corporation on a number of e-commerce initiatives.

If that isn't FUD-for-food, I don't know what is. Furthermore, the document itself does not stand up to scrutiny. It's the usual diet of carefully phrased lies and bogus insinuations. As zcat on Groklaw pointed out, you can't even get past the introduction without finding several unsupportable insinuations:

"Government agencies acquire open source software through a variety of channels, whether it be staff downloading open source code from the internet, or external developers providing software that includes open source components. While this use of open source software has many benefits, it brings with it a number of legal risks not posed by proprietary or commercial software. These include an increased risk of exposure to faults and intellectual property claims, and the risk of forced disclosure of confidential code."

Increased risk of exposure to faults? You mean like viruses? spyware? Self-installing rootkits on audio CDs? The WMA backdoor? The WMF backdoor? I don't see any 'increased risk' from using Open Source software here; I see a hugely decreased risk!

IP Claims? Well, lets wait and see how the SCO case works out..

Forced disclosure of confidential code? This one is pure FUD. Complying with the GPL by disclosing code is always optional. The alternative is to stop distributing _other_ _people's_ _code_ without their permission.

Oh yeah; on the point of exposure to IP claims, Microsoft provides some great legal protection; to quote their standard eula: "17. EXCLUSION OF INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL AND CERTAIN OTHER DAMAGES. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS OR CONFIDENTIAL OR OTHER INFORMATION, FOR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, FOR PERSONAL INJURY, FOR LOSS OF PRIVACY, FOR FAILURE TO MEET ANY DUTY INCLUDING OF GOOD FAITH OR OF REASONABLE CARE, FOR NEGLIGENCE, AND FOR ANY OTHER PECUNIARY OR OTHER LOSS WHATSOEVER) ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE, THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT OR OTHER SERVICES, INFORMATON, SOFTWARE, AND RELATED CONTENT THROUGH THE SOFTWARE OR OTHERWISE ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE, OR OTHERWISE UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY PROVISION OF THIS EULA, EVEN IN THE EVENT OF THE FAULT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), MISREPRESENTATION, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF CONTRACT OR BREACH OF WARRANTY OF MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER, AND EVEN IF MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES."

• In addition to the foregoing general objections, IBM objects specifically to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence. IBM also objects to this Request on the grounds that the content of the Groklaw website, a non-IBM, publicly accessible website, is as accessible to SCO as it is to IBM. Subject to, as limited by, and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, IBM states that it does not finance, fund, sponsor, or promote Groklaw; IBM does not have any agreements or arrangements with Groklaw or Pamela Jones, and IBM does not necessarily agree or disagree with the content of any of the material published on Groklaw.

Access to the source code is an issue separate to access to the documents and the 500 hours of support.

And yet you brought it up as relevant to Microsoft's compliance. You can't have it both ways. But I agree (as does the person you are responding to). The source code is not the documentation.

On the other hand, you are still linking the documentation and the 500 hours of support. My understanding is that the 500 hours of support goes with the access to the source code. Thus it, too, is irrelevant to the discussion.

I have a hard time accepting that 12,000 pages of documentation on dozens of complex subjects can be fairly evaluated in a 48 hour period

Perhaps you are assuming that all 12,000 pages must be perused in order to form an opinion. There is enough material there, though, to form an evaluation by statistical methods.

Assume that the quality of all 12,000 pages is alike. If so, you may take a sampling (something reasonable, statistically), and judge them. That should be easily accomplishable in 48 hours. And you verify or refute your assumption in the same step.

On the contrary, assume that the quality of all 12,000 pages varies wildly. If this is the case, the first step is to verify THAT assumption - as it is a flaw fatal unto itself. If the assumption is false, see the case above. If true, ...

And there is always the achilles heel of a comprehensive index and crossreferencing scheme. That, too, is a quality that could generate a rejection based on only a short examination of the documentation. If you can't find the answer you need in a short amount of time, then the documentation is still faulty.

Rejection based on accessability, detail, quality, or useability would not require very long at all, especially if the flaws made themselves readily apparent. Creating a successful project in 48 hours based on the documentation (what you seem to be implying) is not necessary.

At least Microsoft's screwing is transparent. The comission's screwing happens behind closed doors.

You see some documents from Microsoft, and assume they tell the whole story? That seems out of character with the rest of your comments.

On the other hand, you cut to the chase: you want to see what's not been made available. Reasonable, if you wish to form an informed opinion. I fear, though, that you will have to get used to disappointment. Or perhaps you will undertake a project of a nature similar to http://groklaw.net/, and clear it up for the rest of us.

• you mean this letter?
• or this one to its customers?
  
• another
  
• still more
  

• you mean this letter?
• or this one to its customers?
  
• another
  
• still more
  

• you mean this letter?
• or this one to its customers?
  
• another
  
• still more
  

• you mean this letter?
• or this one to its customers?
  
• another
  
• still more
  

GL reports that IBM have now subpoenas Houlihan Valuation Advisers which did an evaluation of Caldera before Darl took over and started the lawsuits.

The evaluation concludes (in contradiction to what TSG told the judge) that "the recent overall financial performance of [Caldera/TSG] was inferior to that of the average company in the industry in many respects. Its income statement was weaker in terms of gross sales, operating margin and net margins; its asset composition was less liquid; fixed asset and total asset turnover ratios were lower indicating less efficiency in operations; and its profitability was considerably lower." You get the idea.

It also concludes that GNU/Linux is going to drive Unix systems out of the market based on it being a better product.

One has to ask the question why the hell did they start the lawsuit?

You need to pop over to groklaw a bit mroe often! PJ has been doing a fab job keeping us all informed & amused. I must say, this Punch & Judy show is really getting juicy now. I can't wait 'til the court case starts properly.... then we'll really see who's been behind all this SCO crap. And to think I bought a copy of Caldera once. Doh. What a fuck-wit I am!

Still, I have to wonder why IBM is willing to spend the money for the additional activity?

Because the drama, oops I mean SCO vs IBM case, is not over. It is still in the descovery process.

From http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200602212 20214214

22-Dec-05 - Final Deadline for Parties to Identify with Specificity All Allegedly Misused Material

27-Jan-06 - Close of All Fact Discovery Except As to Defenses to Claims Relating to Allegedly Misused Material

17-Mar-06 - Close of All Remaining Discovery (i.e., Fact Discovery As to Defenses to Any Claim Relating to Allegedly Misused Material)

As you can see, we're in the part that I've highlighted in red [bold], which is over on March 17. It's all about defenses now. In other words, SCO filed it's list of ha ha allegedly misused material, and now IBM gets to do discovery to establish its defenses. Don't forget the expert witnesses also:

14-Apr-06 - Initial Expert Reports
19-May-06 - Opposing Expert Reports
16-Jun-06 - Rebuttal Expert Reports
10-July-06 - Final Deadline for Expert Discovery

• American Video Graphics v. Microsoft .. Violating Intellectual Property Rights.
• AOL Time-Warner v. Microsoft .. Illegal Bundling.
• Apple v. Microsoft .. Copyright Violation.
• Arendi Holdings v. Microsoft .. Patent Violation.
• AT&T v. Microsoft .. Failure to Share Source Code.
• Pulp Fiction writer sues Microsoft .. Misappropriation of Trade Secrets.
• Borland v. Microsoft .. Staff Poaching.
• Brazil v. Microsoft .. Impeding Competition.
• Bristol Technology v. Microsoft Corp .. Deceptive Business Practices.
• BTG International v. Apple and Microsoft - Patent Infringement.
• Caldera v. Microsoft .. Withholding code and Embedding Fake Error msgs in Windows.
• eLeaders v. Microsoft .. attempted to Monopolize the Market.
• California Cities sue Microsoft .. Monopoly Control.
• Corel-Microsoft deal .. caused Corel to Withdraw from the Linux market.
• DoJ investigation re Illegal Bundling of MSN with Windows 95.
• Minnesota: Gordon v. Microsoft .. Broke Windows unless it ran on MS-DOS.
• South Korean v Microsoft .. over Slammer Worm.
• Daum Communications v. Microsoft .. Illegal Bundling.
• Eolas Technologies v. Microsoft .. Patent Infringement.
• E-Pass v. Microsoft .. Patent Infringment.
• EU anti-trust case .. exerting Undue Influence.
• Eu v. Microsoft Europe .. Unlawful Tying and deliberate Interoperability Barriers.
• Syn-X Relief v. Microsoft .. Software Piracy.
• Goldtouch v. Microsoft .. Patent Infringement.
• Intertrust Technologies v. Microsoft .. Patent Infringement.
• Japan FTC v Microsoft .. a Do Not Sue MS clause in OEM Contracts :)
• Be, Inc. v. Microsoft .. Antitrust Lawsuit.
• Burst v. Microsoft .. Patent Violation.
• Netscape v. Microsoft .. Illegally Exploiting Monopoly Power.
• Sun v. Microsoft .. Illegal Tying and Exclusionary Agreements.
• Novell v. Microsoft .. Suppress the sales of WordPerfect.
• Priceline v. M

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200602212 20214214
"
IBM Subpoenas Microsoft! Sun! Baystar and HP!
Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 10:02 PM EST

Hold on to your hats! IBM has subpoenaed Microsoft! And Sun! "

Well MS isn't going to sue, they will find lackeys like SCO to do the suing for them while find ways to shovel money at them.

It looks like they picked on the wrong guy with IBM though, the groklaw headline reads IBM Subpoenas Microsoft! Sun! Baystar and HP!.

Imagine the cockroaches that are going to crawl out when those documents hit the court. Presuming of course that those documents haven't been lost, shredded or otherwise just become unavailable.

I wouldn't be surprised if IBM sued MS after the sco trial is over just to get their money back from the lawsuit. You know MS is going to settle, they tend to pay up pretty quickly when slapped with lawsuits.

Lastly to quote Pulp Fiction, and then "we are going to get medieval on your ass."

Enlightenment, Liberty, Freedom of Speech are just examples of spin banded about by "wacko commie copyright thieving IP environmentalists". Ideas aren't abstract things, they are concrete, definite, with walls, ceilings, central heating and cutesy french patio doors - that's why they are property and need to be owned.

We need DRM, cookyright, perpetual copyright and much more, otherwise nobody will invest in research and society will grind to a halt. Innovation needs ownership.

If proof was ever needed of these obvious points, I'd like to refer you to my previous comments on Slashdot and how my "original, physical, property like and therefore owned by me" parody was then obviously (to me only) rehashed, re-written into a completely different parody on Groklaw with no resemblance to the original. The act was so cunning that any right minded person would say that both articles are completely different, that's why we need ownership on everything and DRM everywhere to stop such "free thinking" (another spin word) events.

The full story is here, in my society's letter to Groklaw

The Kabal for Notional Abstract Conceptual Knowledge and its Empowerment through Regulation, Enforcement and Dividends [KNACKERED] has recently discovered the following publication on GrokLaw.

Cold Pizza, by Scott Lazar http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200601041 61112858 published in January 2006 - a so called parody of EULA within Food.

However, the ColdPizza parody would appear to us (if looked at obtusely in just about the right amount of pitch darkness) to be a derivative work of our business proposal, that of physical rights management (PRM) - as published on Slashdot by one of our members (Dove_From_Above) in Nov 2005 http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=168546&cid=140 52469

As such it is in breach of article 5 of the KNACKERED society's list of great ideas, namely that of:-

5. Creative Rights Management - all new works are to some respect derivative products, hence the printing press was based upon writing which was based upon slapping coloured material on cave walls. This is a fascinating project under our "all new knowledge is theft" programme.

This is a concept which we hope to introduce shortly into your legal systems, through our extensive use of lobbying and freebies.

Legal Analysis

The following is an in-depth analysis of why ColdPizza is a derivative work - provided by our legal sleuths of BlockHead and Tackle.

1. Both articles mention Pizza.

Furthermore

2. Both system use registration at point of sale.

3. Both systems provide greater choice to the consumer by removing the burden of freedom.

4. Both systems provide a clearly inaccessible EULA which can be conveniently agreed to without inconveniencing the consumer.

5. Both systems have possible minor but unlikely side effects which on first glance look pretty depressing.

Legal Conclusion

Though our legal sleuths suggest that points 2 to 5 may in fact be universally common to many rights management systems - there can be no doubt on point 1.

We hereby give notice that any further publication of ColdPizza is obviously a breach of our rights (once we've implemented them) and you owe us. However, in the interests of an open and free society, we are willing to compromise on the first part (publication, breach of rights) but not on the later (you owe us).

Future Opportunity

At this point, we wish to propose our societies latest and greatest idea -

This will scare you all. Currently, due to a bizarre and rather alarming interpretation of copyright law with the common law tradition in New York, it seem that Capitol Records (the holders of the sound-recording copyright to the beatles back catalogue) have won a landmark victory which means that in the US they have copyright FOREVER on the beatles music. Yes Forever. Read more at Groklaw here... this has distressing implications and shows that the record labels will do anything to hold onto that monopoly....

that PDF link appears to be dead. here's a counter link that says that GPL licenses aren't as novel as you're saying they are. anyway, it doesn't seem like no-burden licensing is a new thing, the ability for something to be placed in the public domain has existed for a while and that's the ultimate no-burden license. these aren't even no-burden licenses because open source licensing puts more of a burden on the user of the item than putting something in the public domain would; the user of the software is usually obligated in some way, whether that's inclusion of the license/credit clause in the final product or the requirement to license derived software under an equally open license.

anyway, what the parent poster seemed to be implying is that Oracle could change the terms of the purchased license and have the change work retroactively on people who have already taken the code and were complying with the terms of the license that existed at the time that they took the code. surely that should be covered by some settled case law, setting open-source licenses aside i can't imagine that this hasn't come up before with some sort of license dispute.

let me add an IANAL here, but this sure seems like basic stuff

Stroustrup's comment. Apparently Microsoft is revising their documentation to clear up the confusion.

This was debunked quickly.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200512311 42317870
They are using those numbers as the bases of their arguement that linux is becoming less secure. Those numbers are not just for linux but also AIX, Apple, FreeBSD, Solaris, Linux, and a few more OS. Also the list has a ton of flaws counted more then once.

Anyone else see that there is no point in fighting the US, they are doing a perfect job of screwing themselves over...

karem

You mean, like, make it unconstitutional???

Now they wrap newspapers with credit card numbers.

Concur. I may not agree with much else out of Mass., but a tricorn hat off to them for ODF.
Props to a state that's been thumbing its nose at tyrrany since Sam Adams
Kudos to Peter Quinn. If I were still in SOCAL, I'd check him at the Southern California Linux Expo 2006.
There's a dude worth buying the beverage of his choice.

What any developer needs to interoperate with another system is a complete, published, supported interface, which is what the EU ordered Microsoft to deliver. Having the source code to the system may help you to debug your implementation, but in this case it comes at a very stiff cost: exposure to Microsoft's intellectual property. Once a developer looks at that source code, they are contaminated -- Microsoft can come back afterwards and accuse them of taking Microsoft's IP and using it without license. (This applies to commercial developers as well as FOSS developers, but the risk is higher for FOSS).

PJ has a much longer explanation of this over on Groklaw.

I don't know about you bozos, but what the hell do we really know about the legaleze and liabilities/limitations of this announcement? Are you guys kiddings yourselves? The issue is not whether Microsoft will comply or not or how the information will be licensed or what it will charge. The issue is that a thrice-convicted company's overall strategy is to drag its heels in a balance between being fined at a rate that Microsoft can afford and at a rate that it can not. So, if the fines go up, it 'releases' information. If they go down, it will stop. It's that simple. Now, the other side of the equation is this: who's to say that the documention released will be accurate? There is no compelling reason for Microsoft to publish accurate information. It can simply say that it made a mistake and that, to correct 12,000 pages of information will take ages... and so, drag it out again... If you want to fingure out what's really going on, check out Groklaw: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200601251 03545406

There's also Tridgell's Myths about Samba.

There's a good discussion of this going on over at Groklaw, too.

I am going to put my plug in for Geeklog. http://geeklog.net/

I use is for the base of many commercial web sites, utilizing the WYSISYG (FCKeditor) page editor and the news manager. It provides an excellent frame work for developing sites on top of, especially if you need a basic website with some extras thrown in.

It also runs sites such as http://www.groklaw.net/ and http://worldmusiccentral.org/

By changing the templates or config to eliminate links to the parts you do not need, (example, links pages, polls, etc), you can use the user login, edit, and admin parts to allow your web clients to edit their own pages, saving you the trouble and saving them money in the long run. The templates are completely separate from the code, allowing you to design graphics for the site separate from the code.

Updates are pretty easy if you keep your custom code out of the main install, a process that is pretty easy if you put your code in lib-custom.php. The code is well written and clear enough for a person with basic php knowledge to hack if they like

The software is all php/mysql and run efficiently on most linux shared hosts. There are also a wide variety of plugins.

The forum and developers are responsive to support requests.

just my two cents from a fan of geeklog,

it is also available for demo at http://opensourcecms.com/

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200512070 20812228

From a government records manager and archivist point of view, his stance makes sense. Archives must be accessible in the future. Proprietrary formats are anathemas to government records and archives.

You're already above the dictionary.

Moderators: Before you mod this Offtopic, consider this - wouldn't it be nice if Slashdot had an "Offtopic" thread, like Groklaw does, so that people like me who have to get some irrelevant remark of their chests, can do so in a clean, well-lit place, without having their karma repossessed? Just an (offtopic:) thought.

If you don't have enough time to read it all, please, do read the interesting parts about Divx Networks, Autodesk and Adobe, and the testimonies of their representatives, on how they had to divert a considerable amount of money and human resources towards the software patents arms race, intead of using these resources on innovative projects.

These are real, solid examples of the disaster of software patents in the US.

Lots of lawyers are wrong in their legal views and some of them even lose cases. Lots of basketball players who can perform slam dunks sometimes miss the basket and sometimes lose games. Being an expert doesn't mean you're above being questioned. But you apparently don't even like for people to question whether you're really a lawyer, so you post anonymously, giving us no information to determine if you're actually a lawyer as you claim to be.

Eben Moglen, counsel for the FSF, is also a lawyer who has said repeatedly that "Licenses are not contracts". Perhaps you would take the matter up with him instead. After reading his essays and listening to his talks, I find him to be a far more patient and informative speaker than you appear to be. Then again, he might object to some anonymous nobody claiming to be a lawyer arguing a point with him that he's rehashed so many times.

Pamela Jones, a journalist with a paralegal background who runs Groklaw, has gone on record saying that "The GPL is a license, not a contract" in which she cites Moglen's essay and expands on it a bit. Perhaps you'd rather discuss the matter with her, since she too might be more on your level of expertise.

But I think it's telling that instead of patiently explaining the difference between the terms 'license' and 'contract' you instead chose to take a needlessly confrontational and remarkably uninformative route to point out that most non-lawyers don't understand the terms. It's unfortunate that the /. moderators don't seem to penalize such posts in an attempt to raise the level of discourse here.

And now they're trying again. See the story on Groklaw for the details.