Slashdot Mirror

And if some are inclined to dismiss the above as trivial ("there are always stupid people out there, no need to pay attention to them"), read this statement at Groklaw.

For those not aware of what had happened in the past few months: Canopy is an "umbrella" company, which was the biggest shareholder in SCO. It was founded by Ray Noorda, the founder of Novell, after he left Novell. Canopy's president (and SCO's chairman of the board of directors) was Ralph Yarro. Ralph Yarro was sacked from Canopy for bad business practices, he sued the new leadership of Canopy, and they sued him back, which exposed Yarro's schemes to distribute most of the money coming in from Canopy's investments to himself, and other directors in the form of huge bonuses.

This was settled by giving Yarro Canopy's stock in SCO, but no before two people commiting suicide, one of which was Noorda's daughter. Her brother had this to say about her death:

But the journalistic integrity of any publication is defeated when articles, such as those recently appearing in the Salt Lake Tribune, include quotes from "analysts" who are completely misleading and just plain wrong about nearly every fact and interpretation. When the information provided by analysts like Rob Enderle and Laura DiDio weren't incorrect, their statements represented speculation more fitting to a daytime soap opera than to the business section of a newspaper.

With Microsoft my relationship goes deeper. A few years back, when I was first starting out as an analyst, I got myself into a lot of hot water by doing something I knew was wrong to prevent a crime from being committed. I am both an ex-auditor and an ex-sheriff and took the related vows very seriously and still, for the most part, live by them. By all accounts I would have lost my job and probably had to change careers again if it weren't for Bill Gates personally coming to my defense and pointing out that what I did probably kept a lot of folks out of jail. He didn't have to do that and, to this day I doubt he even remembers he did,

but I remember.

Further, Ms. Didio has pumped out more than one "independent survey" that is a little less than independent. From exactly how the questions are worded, to using multiple choices that don't allow alternative answers, to using pro-Microsoft audiences as the target audience for the surveys:

"Located in Tampa Bay, Florida, Sunbelt Software is the first and one of the largest providers of "best-of-breed" Windows NT, 2000/2003 utilities, supplying the tools necessary to support a Windows NT/2000 infrastructure. Working in partnership with innovative software developers, Sunbelt Software produces leading edge utilities and provides mainframe quality technical support. Sunbelt Software Inc. is a member of the 2001 Inc. 500 list of America's fastest growing companies. . . .

"Sunbelt is a Microsoft Gold Certified Partner interested in what Windows network administrators need to solve their NT/2000 problems. We are constantly surveying NT/2000 administrators to determine which utilities

I know you were being funny. It's ok. But see that's the point. By making this complaint she hopes to silences honest criticism, hoping it will be lumped in with the attacks. It worked. My initial comment was mod-bomed, because people can't tell the difference between a personal attack and a debate. What's worse is the fact that this ploy of hers is just a red hearing to distract attention away from the fact that I believe that she's trolled at the same level, or worse, as those she accuses.

Google some of DiDio's comments about Val Norda Kriedel, realize that Val killed herself over some of these words, and truly understand how words can hurt.

Yesterday, Brent Noorda posted an open letter on Groklaw Brent Noorda Sets the Record Straight --here's a key quote:

While the information provided by analysts like Rob Enderle and Laura DiDio weren't incorrect, their statements represented speculation more fitting to a daytime soap opera than to the business section of a newspaper.

this refers in part to DiDio's many inflammatory statements, in particular one from the SLC Tribune on March 9:

No one could say for sure Wednesday, although Yankee Group analyst Laura DiDio had some advice for those watching the fortunes of both Canopy and the Noorda Family Trust - two entities controlling hundreds of millions of dollars. "This is all about the money, and the ones most closely following the money are the Noordas' [four] kids," she said. "Who stands to gain the most? And what's the only thing that stood between them and the money?

"That was Ralph Yarro. So, good-bye, Ralph," DiDio added. "I don't think Yarro will be reinstated. I find that highly unlikely. . . They will just pay him off and send him on his way - but they won't countenance anyone who's a threat" to their monetary access.

People following the case know about Val Noorda Kreidel's tragic suicide a few weeks ago, and evidently, Brent Noorda felt compelled to address the out-of-bounds tactics of these so-called 'analysts.'

While it could be agreed that there are individual extremists among the pro-FOSS crowd, DiDio and her fellow neo-cons (Enderle, Maureen O'Gara) consider Groklaw itself to be a radical extremist site, despite the solid legal reportage done by Pamela Jones and company (so good, in fact, that SCO raided Groklaw's documents to seed their own prosco site).

While DiDio is crying harrassment, one could have a sense that the best defense is a good offense, as in she'd rather take offense than apologize for her own transgressions...

I encourage everybody who hasn't already, to check out Brent Noorda's open letter on Groklaw, and then decide for yourself who's the real extremist!

> "coming clean" after you've violated the license on GPL software is not enough, you have to ask for forgiveness too.

Funny, that's not the opinion of the only court to have decided a GPL violation case. Instead, they said this :

"Furthermore is to be considered that the effective offer does not expire upon a violation, but the violator can reacquire the rights at any time by acceptance of and compliance with the conditions. Thus, the automatic termination is not particularly severe for the violator"

To me, EU is like the Polish-Lithuanian Republic - a beautiful concept, eventually brought to its knees by undemocratic technicalities like the Liberum Veto

If you haven't heard of her, you're doing well.

Perhaps the best summary:

http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/Laura DiDio

Or for a more broad-brush approach, here's the output of a search for her name on groklaw

http://www.groklaw.net/search.php?query=Laura+Didi o&keyType=phrase&datestart=&dateend=&topic=0&type= all&author=0&mode=search

And some articles specifically discussing her:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200404221 15008560&query=Laura+Didio
or http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200401030 40251888&query=Laura+Didio

If you haven't heard of her, you're doing well.

Perhaps the best summary:

http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/Laura DiDio

Or for a more broad-brush approach, here's the output of a search for her name on groklaw

http://www.groklaw.net/search.php?query=Laura+Didi o&keyType=phrase&datestart=&dateend=&topic=0&type= all&author=0&mode=search

And some articles specifically discussing her:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200404221 15008560&query=Laura+Didio
or http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200401030 40251888&query=Laura+Didio

If you haven't heard of her, you're doing well.

Perhaps the best summary:

http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/Laura DiDio

Or for a more broad-brush approach, here's the output of a search for her name on groklaw

http://www.groklaw.net/search.php?query=Laura+Didi o&keyType=phrase&datestart=&dateend=&topic=0&type= all&author=0&mode=search

And some articles specifically discussing her:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200404221 15008560&query=Laura+Didio
or http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200401030 40251888&query=Laura+Didio

http://www.sunbelt-software.com/surveys/040213_Lin ux.htm

oh, and btw - it was sent out to readers of the w2k news magazine:
http://www.w2knews.com/index.cfm?id=463

So, the sample of survey respondents was about as controlled as a george bush or saddam hussein political ralley.

More at: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200403240 85956154

But then, maybe they're all wrong and Mrs. DiDio is right. After all, she's an analyst, right?

More on Microsoft's Get the Facts FUD campaign, and my response to their desperate attempts.

And as a footnote (bootnote for our friends across the pond), a little background on our dear Ms. Didio and her "independent studies" and lets not forget our dear Booby Winderle while we're studying analyst independence.

If Windows and Linux are "about equal" in a report put out by our esteemed Ms. Didio, then hold on to your mouses because the floodgates are about to open on what Linux is really doing to the commercial market. 50% growth rate year after year after year, and this is the best Ms. Didio can manage? Perhaps she decided she can no longer bury the truth and its time to start shifting position lest she be exposed to the "decision makers" as just another Microsoft hack like those of us in the FOSS community have already seen?

Millions of lines of infringing Linux kernel code by any chance?

Have a poke around on Groklaw - there are several people active there who identify themselves as lawyers who are certainly into FOSS that you could talk to.

That is one way of looking at it. You seem to want to give them credit for decency that I doubt exists. I suggest an alternative explanation exists. Instead of pointing out that they are doing what they accuse us of, I ask if they make up these accusations because their value system accepts this behaviour. I think this is the battlefield that counts. Do they believe it is appropriate to misuse the work of others? The Creative Commons License that Groklaw applies to it's material requires attribution. SCO is using copies without that attribution!

Maureen is the only one calling it a suicide

Maureen was the one who called it a heart attack. It was only after a couple of Yahoo! Finance message board regulars started making phone calls (it's called "fact checking") to the county coroner's office that the suicide came to light. After this news made the rounds on forums and blogs, the family made a request "... that their privacy and the privacy of the Kreidel family in their time of grief be respected."

The content isn't copyrighted, but the formatting is copyrighted under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0.

What does that mean, that the formatting is copyrighted? See this thread, on Groklaw. There are also court cases where the contents of a phone directory were considered public information, but their compilation, formatting, etc., were considered copyrighted. (I'm feeling to lazy to look it up at the moment.)

Still, does this really rise to the level of a Federal Case? Is it worth it to file suit, or even send a C & D letter?

At any rate, PJ has made it abundantly clear that she has no intention of pursing this legally. She just finds it very funny, as do I. The people crying for litigation are missing the point.

Groklaw has more on this today -- Mass. is soliciting user feedback until April 1st (8 days away).

No clear word on why Mass. caved into Microsoft's wishes and used their "open" program to give official imprimateur to Microsoft's proprietary nonsense. Hence, I suspect Mass. is getting some reduced price proprietary software licenses in exchange.

Another victory for the watered-down open source movement, I guess.

On Jan. 14th, 2005, Eric Kriss, Secretary for the Executive Office of the Administration of Finance for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, gave a speech wherein he described what they called "Open Standards" work the state had been doing for a year and why this work mattered. They were extending their work to cover what they called "Open Formats" as well.

Briefly, the state wants to preserve public electronic documents for future use and in order to do that, they need to make sure they can read the document. "Open Formats" are "specifications for data file formats that are based on an underlying open standard, developed by an open community and affirmed by a standards body; or, de facto format standards controlled by other entities that are fully documented and available for public use under perpetual, royalty-free, and nondiscriminatory terms.". By filtering out software that doesn't support "open formats" they could avoid falling into a trap. Things looked rosy and bright for a while, as if the state wasn't going to do their government work with a file format that they might not be able to read 100 years from now because some proprietor leveraged their DMCA-backed power to shut off access.

By the end of the month, Betanews reported that Kriss had announced a change--"Under the change, Microsoft Office file formats could be considered open by the Commonwealth, depending on the terms of usage.". Kriss also included that "[...] it is our expectation that the next iteration of the Open Format standard will include some Microsoft proprietary formats". Microsoft has changed the terms of usage for "end users who merely open and read government documents". Note that "merely open[ing] and read[ing] government documents" might not include doing a number of other useful things with documents such as: printing, copying, or excerpting material from documents.

One wonders if Massachusetts did this in exchange for some low-cost licenses.

Ok....

(Hint: by definition, all software is intangible. If it were tangible, it would be hardware)

Wrong. All software is tangible. It resides within a computer, floppy disk, hard drive, etc.... Therefore, your definition of intangible versus tangible is flawed. The ONLY reason you can copyright software is because it is, by extension, a form of writing and communication - which is why the Copyright Office opened this form of copyrighting at all. Well, big business had a lot do with it too but that was the underlying argument.

Superman and Luke Skywalker are both copyrighted and trademarked, even though they are inarguably the products of mental action, or "ideas".

Incorrect again! Damn! And here I thought you might be on to something. Superman is copyrighted as a comic book. However, Marvel has Superman also, BUT he isn't called Superman. And the reason he isn't called Superman is not because Superman is copyrighted. It's because he is a registered trademark and thus protected under the rules and regulations regarding trademarks. Look it up. As for Luke Skywalker. The name itself can not be copyrighted but it can (again) be trademarked for purposes of distinguishing it from other generic "Luke Skywalker" names (such as a person's name). Further, the books for both Superman and Luke Skywalker allow an extension of the copyright laws which deal with protecting specific instances of names. Thus, someone can not write (legally) about Luke Skywalker and his adventures except in the standard method of fair use. However, this doesn't amount to anything when you are talking about fans of the Star Wars saga because most fans don't really care. Which is why no one tries to do anything about fans. First, because they want fans, and second it gives the owners of the copyrights access to derivative works which they may be able to use to create monetary income. (ie: Hire the author if they like their writings.)

Prehaps you don't know what "idea" means- prehaps you don't know how all-ecompassingly generic it is:

And perhaps you don't know the difference between talking generally and talking specifically. This isn't legal class 101 - it's just a chat board and the quote was taken, literally from the article. Thus, if you have a problem with what he has said - maybe you should go discuss your differences with Mr. Eric Grimm himself. I am sure he would enjoy your saying he doesn't know what he is talking about.

And while we are on the subject of copyright and what is or is not protected I would like to draw your attention to BattleStar Glactica. This famed series originally starred Lorn Green and the entire basis of how everything worked in the series was done by none other than - George Lucas. George came up with the special effects and many of the other things which made the series a hit. Then George tried to sue. After all, these were his ideas, processes, and (just about) everything else. Know what? After a few years of listening to the case the judge threw the case out and told Mr. Lucas to "Get a life!" The judge went on to chastise Mr. Lucas because, in the judge's words "You don't own the universe Mr. Lucas." And here is where ideas met reality. Just as they did in this case. He couldn't own the ideas. Only the copyright's embodiment of the ideas and those had been bought and paid for by the TV studios who had hired him to do the special effects.

Later.

19. SCO never repudiated the GPL, and it always endeavored to comply with its GPL obligations.

Do you have logs documenting that the code existed prior to your employment? If so, I'd take that, the GPL code you leveraged, and a copy of the GPL to the legal department. Suggest they also take a look at Groklaw to give them a clue what happens when you tangle with the Nazgul (aka IBM Legal).

Obviously I'd have my resume ready before doing this, you'll need it.

A not-so-minor correction: the GPL is a license, not a contract. Read anout the implications of that here -- by the way, one of the clearest explanations of the GPL...and no wonder, its' written by Pamela Jones based on interviews with Eben Moglen.

In the SCO vs IBM case, people have been saying that such interface code (such as header files) is not copyrightable. If that is the case, then there is no GPL violation because the person using the GPLed code is not breaking copyright to include such derived interface information, and thus they don't need the license provided by the GPL to allow them to distribute. (Remember that the GPL is not a contract, so there is no requirement for someone to GPL their derivative code -- they normally need to abide by the GPL in order to get the right to distribute someone else's copyrighted work.)

Well, it also made some management types hesitate, until they were able to see which way the wind was blowing. So I think that counterbalances whatever publicity (more or less).

And as things unfolded, we learned that SCO didn't have anything substantial as far as linux goes, and probably contractually to IBM, either.

Really, it was a sideshow, a distraction. Perhaps it gave us a feeling of solidarity, being under attack and all that. And we do have SCO to thank for motivating PJ to start Groklaw. In fact, I think that's the most substantial benefit we've seen from the SCO case. Groklaw and it's paradigm of Open Source Investigative Journalism. (Note: I have been critical of PJ in the past, but mostly because of her very extreme partisanship. The time she compared Linus to a baby seal was too much.)

noone has mentioned groklaw yet

Totally worth it. As an earlier post pointed out, the EP is actually highly aggravated by the actions of the Council of Ministers in approving the Directive without their amendments. Groklaw has the EP's press release on the subject and it's clear the EP is mad as hell - the language borders on the undiplomatic, which for Europe is very unusual.

"The quarrel between the Commission and Parliament over the directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions goes on. During a plenary debate on Tuesday evening, MEPs attacked the Commission's refusal to submit its draft directive for a new first reading by Parliament. They also criticised the directive's scope."

The reason this upsets the EP is that if the decision is allowed to stand it sets a precedent for binding legislation to be created in Council without any recourse for elected assemblies - if the EP doesn't manage to get all MEPs in the room to vote it down now, the thing will pass unaltered and all EU states will be compelled to implement it as law.

So, for the first time, we can really make a difference by writing to MEPs and ensuring they are aware that this is a big deal for their constituents. The political trap is set, it's up to us to spring it. Personally I have already gone to WriteToThem and written to my MEPs, it was very easy.

And, once again, this has *nothing* to do with my rights online. How's that Legal section coming along, Taco?

See Law-dot.

Some readers complain that the SCO v. IBM litigation is taking too long to be resolved, others that it's too complex, too hard to follow. For them, here is the quick version, which made me laugh. It's by toads_for_all, and was originally posted on the SCOX Yahoo board, Msg: 241992. He was kind enough to let me share it with you here. In his little play, he imagines a conversation between SCO, IBM and Novell, which tells his version of the whole SCO v. IBM saga in less than 350 words. Feel free to build on his work or make one of your own. I bet one of you creative brainiacs could come up with a cute one about the discovery games. Straight from a post By PJ on Groklaw

Open Source Risk Management is a company that wants to insure companies against potential open source copyright/patent problems. Pamela Jones (of groklaw fame) and Bruce Perens are involved. OSRM released a whitepaper saying that at least 283 patents could potentially be used in litigation over the Linux kernel.

No, I'm not joking. Groklaw is one-sided. If you read the other information out there (like the link in my sig), the CDDL actually _protects_ all code under the CDDL from patent lawsuits. Sun wants to respond to the reality of "patent terrorists" in a real way, part of which is their grant of the patents in OpenSolaris. They are releasing OpenSolaris as a known _non_infringing_ code base. The comments about lawsuits by Microsoft are FUD, pure and simple.

And, if you read later in groklaw, they actually weakened their stance. You only read their first set of questions about the CDDL, which are perfect for Slashdotters who really like to take things out of context. You also can't ignore that right at the very top of Groklaw's website it says "IANAL"! So why do you have to put so much weight on their opinions?

Sun Begins to Respond to Patent Questions. Sun Responds to Criticism of CDDL. But if you read, a lot of what Groklaw writes is pure opinion--often offered without any real basis. It's seems as if they will say "we don't like green jello", and all of a sudden green jello gets banned at Slashdot.

If Sun fails at anything, it will be in trying to educate people about their open source efforts. People want simple things like, "Me like Jane, me hit Jane with rock!" Instead, the patents issue in software is a bit beyond that. It goes beyond just GPL vs. BSD.

In summary, don't be a Slashdot sheep. If you read around, there is a consensus that the CDDL isn't all bad. There's even a project called ZoneBSD starting, that plans to use CDDL code in a BSD project!

What is so sad about a lot of comments at Slashdot, is they read like right-wing religious wackos. They want to burn open source licenses like banned books. Is it not possible for people to be above this?!?

No, I'm not joking. Groklaw is one-sided. If you read the other information out there (like the link in my sig), the CDDL actually _protects_ all code under the CDDL from patent lawsuits. Sun wants to respond to the reality of "patent terrorists" in a real way, part of which is their grant of the patents in OpenSolaris. They are releasing OpenSolaris as a known _non_infringing_ code base. The comments about lawsuits by Microsoft are FUD, pure and simple.

And, if you read later in groklaw, they actually weakened their stance. You only read their first set of questions about the CDDL, which are perfect for Slashdotters who really like to take things out of context. You also can't ignore that right at the very top of Groklaw's website it says "IANAL"! So why do you have to put so much weight on their opinions?

Sun Begins to Respond to Patent Questions. Sun Responds to Criticism of CDDL. But if you read, a lot of what Groklaw writes is pure opinion--often offered without any real basis. It's seems as if they will say "we don't like green jello", and all of a sudden green jello gets banned at Slashdot.

If Sun fails at anything, it will be in trying to educate people about their open source efforts. People want simple things like, "Me like Jane, me hit Jane with rock!" Instead, the patents issue in software is a bit beyond that. It goes beyond just GPL vs. BSD.

In summary, don't be a Slashdot sheep. If you read around, there is a consensus that the CDDL isn't all bad. There's even a project called ZoneBSD starting, that plans to use CDDL code in a BSD project!

What is so sad about a lot of comments at Slashdot, is they read like right-wing religious wackos. They want to burn open source licenses like banned books. Is it not possible for people to be above this?!?

You're joking, right? Note how sun removed section 3.4/3.3 from the Mozilla license and all the other clauses that protect the community from patent issues when they decided to water down the Mozilla license.

an OS that should basically be immune from patent lawsuits--this is a good thing.

Ok, now we known you're just trolling. People who understand patent law far better than you see things differently

'it would be possible for developers co-developing Open Solaris to someday find themselves blocked from distributing code by a Microsoft patent infringement claim, while leaving Sun, because of their cross-licensing deal with Microsoft, free to continue to distribute the contributed code.'

You're joking, right? Note how sun removed section 3.4/3.3 from the Mozilla license and all the other clauses that protect the community from patent issues when they decided to water down the Mozilla license.

an OS that should basically be immune from patent lawsuits--this is a good thing.

Ok, now we known you're just trolling. People who understand patent law far better than you see things differently

'it would be possible for developers co-developing Open Solaris to someday find themselves blocked from distributing code by a Microsoft patent infringement claim, while leaving Sun, because of their cross-licensing deal with Microsoft, free to continue to distribute the contributed code.'

here is a link to the groklaw story

Dvorak seems to have these amazing insights from time to time, but I can't seem to remember one that really came to fruition. In the aritcle, he makes all these assumptions about technology but he doesn't know what he's talking about. Then he uses his unfounded assumptions to conclude that all MS needs to do is embrace and extend Linux. For a more thorough discussion on this very article, see this discussion on Groklaw. Search for the second "Dvorak". --dv

Groklaw has it's own story.

Read the comments:
...What they have done here is patented an IDEA and haven't even TRIED to pass it
off as a PROCESS. And they got a PATENT on it....

I thought we had a legal section here.

The benefit is clear: Solaris would have slowed its death spiral from its great height. Why else do you think they Open Sourced it in the first place? They just miscalculated, manouvered badly, and picked the wrong license. Jeers instead of cheers. Not a good marketing move, and certainly not something to garner the same community fervor as only the GPL-oriented can expend. They would have had a majority of defenders instead of detractors. Not something to take lightly in this slippery market. Public noise can make the difference between being independent, and being a subsidiary.

It may even have split the Linux community into adopters of Solaris in addition to Linux. It would have given Sun breathing space in the market, as even IBM would find it hard to argue the point of using Linux to their customers when another robust and battle-tested GPL OS was out there. But, even more importantly, it could have given Linux a real competitive fight, giving both a chance to evolve and surpass each other. The community could've benefited greatly.

Linus understands Sun very well when he says that:

"...from Sun's perspective, the CDDL had to be incompatible with the GPL. Sun "wants to keep a moat against the barbarians at the gate," he wrote in an e-mail interview. Torvalds said he does not expect developers clamoring to start playing with that source code.

"Nobody wants to play with a crippled version [of Solaris]. I, obviously, do believe that they'll have a hard time getting much of a community built up," Torvalds wrote. "I think there are parallels with the Java 'we'll control the process' model. I personally think that their problem is that they want to control the end result too much, and because of that they won't get any of the real advantages of open source." "

And...

"He contrasted Sun's CDDL with the wide-open nature of the GPL. "One of the beauties of the GPL," he said, is that "you have to totally give up control over the project (because everybody literally has the same rights to the whole project), but exactly because nobody can control it, it makes everybody feel like true owners.""

He's right, and Sun will have to learn it the hard way.

So what you end up as you almost always do is a religious argument based on hypothetical scenarios that have no substance in reality. Fine but don't image that it makes anyone with any sense or perspective think that Sun is out to damage GPL. It isn't and in fact all the evidence is that Sun is out to support GPL where it is sensible.

Any GPL developer would be in danger of contaminating his projects if he were to work on Open Solaris AND Linux due to Sun's questionable patent stance. Yes, witholding patents makes sense if you intend to hurt the users of what you consider a competing community. Why else withold from some and give to others? They've performed an action that doesn't require explanation.

Sun was doing Open Source or something rather like it when the perceived wisdom was that this was a very stupid move commercially.

Let's see, Unix source code was floating around and being shared by various universities and companies. Everyone was sharing their improvements. Now that was enlightenment. Sun relicenses what other people had worked on, decides to close their source and suddenly they were enlightened? Please, it's because of companies like Sun that GNU was started in the first place.

Nonsense. Sun's leadership developed a license that is almost GPL-like, yet they purposely went out of their way in making it incompatible with the GPL. This is a clear sign of contempt for the GPL. It may be too late for them to switch their other products over to this license, they'd lose all credibility, but if they could they would. They still aren't able to articulate a defense for their action, only that they don't see the big deal. This from a company that uses the GPL in other open source products. Most open source advocates haven't missed the message on this one.

...they are the largest commercial donator of code under GPL. We have discussed OpenOffice in detail but Sun has also made huge donations to NetBeans, Grid Engine and a whole host of other GPL or GPL compatible projects.

Don't confuse market tactics against a dangerous monopolistic rival (MS Office, Visual Studio) to be approval or acceptance of a license. Sun is fully aware which license is more effective (BSD or GPL) against M$, and have used it strategically. But, Sun's leadership is not how you make them out to be. They are the opposite. They could have easily made their license compatible with the GPL rather than exclude it, but they didn't.

= 9J =

Nonsense. Sun's leadership developed a license that is almost GPL-like, yet they purposely went out of their way in making it incompatible with the GPL. This is a clear sign of contempt for the GPL. It may be too late for them to switch their other products over to this license, they'd lose all credibility, but if they could they would. They still aren't able to articulate a defense for their action, only that they don't see the big deal. This from a company that uses the GPL in other open source products. Most open source advocates haven't missed the message on this one.

...they are the largest commercial donator of code under GPL. We have discussed OpenOffice in detail but Sun has also made huge donations to NetBeans, Grid Engine and a whole host of other GPL or GPL compatible projects.

Don't confuse market tactics against a dangerous monopolistic rival (MS Office, Visual Studio) to be approval or acceptance of a license. Sun is fully aware which license is more effective (BSD or GPL) against M$, and have used it strategically. But, Sun's leadership is not how you make them out to be. They are the opposite. They could have easily made their license compatible with the GPL rather than exclude it, but they didn't.

= 9J =

And to answer myself, this from Groklaw:

In a brief statement issued Wednesday, SCO spokesman Blake Stowell confirmed only that the delays came ' because management and the company's independent auditors continue to examine certain matters related to the issuance of shares of the company's common stock pursuant to its equity compensation plans.'

My emphasis. Wey hey! Put the champagne on ice, guys, I think we may have a result here!

And to answer myself, this from Groklaw:

In a brief statement issued Wednesday, SCO spokesman Blake Stowell confirmed only that the delays came ' because management and the company's independent auditors continue to examine certain matters related to the issuance of shares of the company's common stock pursuant to its equity compensation plans.'

My emphasis. Wey hey! Put the champagne on ice, guys, I think we may have a result here!

WARNING WARNING WARNING! I AM NOT A LAWYER, AND THE FOLLOWING IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. IN FACT, I KNOW VERY LITTLE OF THE REQUIRED KNOWLEDGE, AND THE FOLLOWING IS INTENDED TO REFLECT MY CURRENT THINKING ONLY. WARNING WARNING WARNING!

LGPL is what lets me use things like libPNG or ZLib in my commercial application without giving away the unrelated source code to my entire program. LGPL is a good thing if you value PNG support in other programs that aren't going to be using GPL themselves.

(The following assumes you are not the copyright holder to the MPL sources.)

Doesn't the MPL allow this as well? In fact, the only time you need to relicense your code under the MPL is if you directly use MPL text. If you don't modify the files or copy-and-paste from the MPL sources, then your contribution can be under any license you wish. IANAL, but that's what the MPL seems to indicate to me.

Now, you can't relicense works based on MPL source under the GPL; although, you can with the LGPL. I think that the main reason is the "patent peace" cause in the MPL. Still, that's a good idea that many licenses are starting to include. There are even rumors that the next generation of the GPL will include something simular. However in the meantime that's why there are MPL/LGPL/GPL tri-licenses is out there.

Now the MPL has its flaws. Some of the requirements don't seem very general purpose. I generally agree with the CDDL's modifications, except for its noted patent peace problems among other minor things. Personally, I want something like the MPL that is easy to apply to a project, yet allows other parties to use any license for other works that associate to/from/with the project or works that that don't contain any of the project's copyrighted stuff. Does anyone have any ideas?

This is is just as frightning:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200412222 05501273 :

"You're smart people. I'm sure you can extrapolate. Microsoft lost its patent argument with this judge, because he wasn't clear that their patents covered the technology it has been ordered to share, as you can see in paragraphs 178 and 179, which raises the question, what might happen if a judge was convinced that the technology was covered by a patent? And, um, if Europe has no software patents currently, how is Microsoft applying for and being granted European software patents?

To all those still thinking that "introducing" software patents in Europe will do no harm, this is your wake-up call. You will be handing a convicted monopolist the tools to become an even greater and more powerful monopoly, and this case shows they absolutely will try to use patents to maintain that monopoly status. Patents are, after all, a monopoly grant. How desirable does that sound?"

A rough translation of the original Danish article is also available.

Note that this story is also being covered by Groklaw, with some good commentary by Pamela Jones.
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)

[Note: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. If you need advice, consult an attorney who can consider the specifics of your case. And above all, ignore people on Slashdot who display a remarkable ignorance of applicable precedent.]

If you access their site in a manner that they explicitly prohibit in a terms and conditions you necessarily would have to read to get the links in the first place, then you violate their terms and conditions, you could be arrested and tried for violation of the CFAA. They don't need a contract to sue you; they'll just claim the access was unauthorized and an intentional tort, and they'll sue you for lost revenue relating to your posting the links you obtained in violation of the CFAA. The need for an account on their site is an access control.

Also, if you're going to play lawyer on Slashdot, you may want to err on the side of caution rather than advising people that some EULA is unenforceable. Slashdot itself has covered a case where clickthrough EULAs were ruled enforceable, even when they contained draconian provisions (waiving first sale rights, waiving fair use rights).

This might be irrelevant to graphics, but I think french cafe analogy written by Andrew Tridgell who developed Samba is a good reference on how to do reverse engineering (or in his term: network analysis or protocol analysis) in general.

He declined IBMs motions for now because he's a professional and he knows how to craft an airtight decision that will be impossible to overturn on appeal. IBM will have further opportunity later, after discovery is complete.

Also, technically it is too early for summary judgment. That can't happen until after discovery is complete.

Read this analysis by Marbux over at Groklaw.

Note to Zonk: If you're going to be an editor, it would be nice if you actually read Slashdot. At least glance through the stories of the past week before you post submissions.