Slashdot Mirror

> When SUSE did this in Germany SCO backed down.

I thought I remembered it this way also, but searching for the story on /. came up with zero.

I did find the story about a German court granting an injunction against sco:

SCO Stands Defiant, German Court Grants Preliminary Injunction

But it was not SuSe, but univention_ GmbH that went to court to get SCO to STFU.

a German court in Bremen granted an injunction to Univention GmbH, a German Linux integrator, against SCO Group GmbH, SCO's German division. The injunction prevents SCO from saying that Linux contains illegally obtained SCO intellectual property, aka Unix source code. If SCO continues to hold this position, they would have to pay a fine of 250,000 Euros.

If there was a similar action by SuSe, I couldn't find it.

Linux Brings In $1 Billion in Revenue for IBM
This was reported on Slashdot. Additional stories: 1 2 3 4
Why do you think he just made up the number? You don't know, so noone else does either?

In Korea a person tried making it his own trademark.
a Boston man tried taking control of it.
Microsoft Purchased it
although it's currently controlled by The Linux Mark Institute so Linus doesn't have to deal with it.

Check out the Linuxworld reference to Computerworld's article. If it's real (and the SEC is paying attention, then SCOX and Canopy could be digging themselves a nice Enron-shaped hole. (should we all start believing in Santa Claus too?)

Nidelven IT just put up a new article called An Introduction to Thunderbird. Looks pretty solid.

CB

Certainly many (in fact, most) OSS-savvy IT industry workers I have come across think Apple is merely using open source for a free ride. Certainly Bruce Perens thought so, and Richard Stallman very pubicly rejected Apple's licensing efforts and questioned their intentions. The Free Software Foundation even boycotted the company. These comments have reinforced IT scepticism of Apple Computer and acceptance of Apple technologies in this field remains close to nil. ZDnet's Evan Leibovitch points out many problems with Apple's (lack of) efforts in Open Source's Black Hole, problems which still remain more than 2 years later.

Your question is good because it would be interesting to see if Bruce's opinions on Apple are still the same, and does he now think the company is genuine? Has it given back a sufficient amount or is it paying lip service only?

[...] I'd say that Linux has a whole bunch of black eyes from this and it will still be a few years before it gets to court.

It's been said that "With enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow." (Linus Torvalds).

So... SCO may blacken some of those eyes, but there will be many more that are left untarnished. Yes, SCO is giving Linux many black eyes, but this is the height of the "then they fight you" phase that Gandhi spoke of. I predict the fight will get dirtier before the "then you win" phase.

(Aside: I've wanted to short SCO since they were at 9. Good thing I don't have any money left! 1/2 ;-)

A description in an abstract has no legal bearing on the scope of the patent granted, nor does excerpts of language drawn from the specification. The claim is the thing. Arguing in general terms from a broad sweeping apprimation of the patent craft is simply quibbling about a straw man.

Normally I'd agree, but the typical technical patent simply is a restatement of the abstract, in all possible permutations of basic hardware and software setups. See the anatomy of a trivial patent for examples of that sort of thing. Combined with the way the Patent Office (and the rest of the system) is forced to take a broad view of patents, it regrettably is fairly valid to argue from the abstract alone.

There's no reasonable way to describe a true implementation of these ideas fully in the twenty or so pages most of these sorts of patents consume.

If you think a claim from a patent is valid, spell out the claim, offer a plausible construction of the claim and tell us what is the prior art. then we have a useful conversation going.

Generally speaking, while that may be useful in non-software domains, software patent claims are uselessly vague. Showing prior art for a patent claim that literally boils down to "Sending encrypted data with a network" (as opposed to the next claim, which could involve sending encrypted data with a modem) is so easy, the legal system refuses to believe it, so they make it impossible, because while specified prior art certainly invalidates the broad claim, it doesn't quite match the exact implementation or something stupid like that. Frankly, I have a hard time keeping all the rationalizations that make software patents possible straight; they are so nonsensical that they make no sense to me anymore.

(taken from content here)

Legally Speaking

Eben Moglen, professor of law at Columbia University and general counsel to the Free Software Foundation (FSF), though says there is absolutely no reason for anyone to buy SCO's license. "Users don't need a license to use copyrighted programs anymore than they need to pay a copyright fee before reading Gone with the Wind. If you copy, distribute, or modify copyrighted material, then you can be in copyright violation."
But, he adds, if a distributor, such as Debian, were to agree to SCO's license, they would then be in violation of section 7 of the Gnu General Public License (GPL). This section specifies that if legal "conditions are imposed... that contradict the conditions of this License" you cannot distribute GPL protected free software.

...

"Even if SCO IP is in the Linux kernel, which has not been proved, an end-user could still not be held responsible for the copyright violation," Moglen argued.

...

Curiously, though, SCO is not, at this time, going after Linux distributors--nor did they suggest that they would be adding copyright infringement to their IBM lawsuit. Moglen thinks that "SCO is simply trying to scare people about using free software by making irresponsible comments." He notes that, until recently, SCO itself was distributing the code they now claim violated their own copyrights.

One reason why SCO may be hesitating about going after the Linux distributors, even though they would be the natural target for copyright violations since they've actively engaged in copying and distributing Linux source code may be because, SCO is still in the Linux distribution business.

...

And, speaking for himself (Moglen) and not the FSF, "I have renewed my offer to assist free software developers who may feel the need for legal assistance" because of SCO's recent actions.

Still, Moglen believes that, "If SCO really wishes to enforce these claimed copyright rights. I would suggest that they sue a Linux distributor. If the FSF distributed Linux, I would welcome such a lawsuit." And, speaking for himself and not the FSF, "I have renewed my offer to assist free software developers who may feel the need for legal assistance" because of SCO's recent actions.

By that logic, SCO has no case. To most people, if it isn't Windows it doesn't exist.

They could throw out some nice, Judge-convincing BS like "We only made these files available via the 'FTP' program, which is only for highly advanced technical individuals such as corporate IT managers, for the convenience of our paying customers. It was not intended for download by unlicensed individuals, and in fact doing so constitutes hacking as per the terms of the DMCA..."

Unless reading security advisories from LinuxSecurity.com constitutes "hacking", I don't see that argument as particularily convincing. SCO posted the kernel on their FTP server May 9th. A Linux kernel developer told SCO about it a month ago. Links to the story were posted on many popular news sites. The code is still there.

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must supply one.

I had found this excellent article a few days ago:

http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2001041200620 OPBZCY--

It is about Open Source Economics, money from open source, and what are some economics-related myths about open source.

Though it is not "exactly" relevant to this topic, it talks about related issues.

It's a new Windows API designed to turn Windows into a virtual machine like Java so it can be architecture independent.

That statement is a laughable sham, and I am sure M$ is glad you brought it up. Windows controls the hardware, and not the other way around. It has been this way for a long time - Windows killed Alpha, for example. .NET is all about providing a web programming interface that fits better with Windows than Java, to force lock-in on the operating system AND the network interface. It is like Java without platform independence, so that Microsoft can make even more money. Predictably, the developer tools are so simple even a Visual Basic monkey can make a web application. Predictably, the bytecode interpreter is buggy and insecure - this is not what will win the battle. Microsoft will make life REALLY easy for developers, they will make development costs low for web companies, and .NET will attempt to throw Java out the window.

I wonder if Redhat and Sun's attempt to open source java will have any impact on this emerging battlefield??

Its a few years old, but still should work http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=1999-11 -07-001-05-NW-LF

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=5406

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2093314,00. html

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2093314,00. html

http://linuxtoday.com/high_performance/20010208009 06PSCDHE"

http://www.practical-tech.com/infrastructure/i0331 2003.htm

http://www.practical-tech.com/business/b06122003.h tm

http://www.eweek.com/print_article/0,3668,a=43186, 00.asp

Note that these releases are not open source. SCO retain rights to the source code. Maybe they even hope that some of their code will wind up in linux, so that they can then sue, and render the Linux license terms invalid. Or would they be that spiteful? My guess == yes.

The comment

Richard N. Turner - Subject: I'm Reminded of An Old Post... ( Feb 23, 2000, 15:39:02 )

...that someone made on an online discussion, oh, about a year ago. It cracked me up so I saved it:

``SCO should do the industry a favor and disband, pausing only to bulk-format all their drives so that none of the evil source code can inadvertently escape into the world. Their marketing people and their tech support people should be sent to camps to be retrained for professions more suited to their skills and their buildings should be torn down and burned.''

I think thats a bit prophetic.

The claim that SCO has specifically mentioned recently is in kernel 2.5. This is the only example that they have disclosed to the public. They are claiming that large chunks of previous kernels had stolen code.

Mr.Robertson said recently in the wake of the SCO vs IBM filing, that he'd paid money to SCO to keep quiet, atleast as regards his flavor of Linux.

You seem to be summarizing the news reported here, here, and here, but your interpretation of the deal as some kind of hush money payoff seems kind of skewed. The deal Robertson mentioned took place two years ago, long before the recent brouhaha. In fact, this was back when SCO was Caldera, they were reasonably Linux-friendly, and McBride was not yet in charge.

This sounds so cowardly and backwards for true Linux enthusiasts. Those who really buy Lindows to use the bundled Linux can load other and better distros as well.

Even if you hadn't twisted the facts, this would be a rather strange thing to say. The "true Linux enthusiasts" aren't anywhere near the target market for Lindows. It's geared toward first-time buyers and people whose previous computer experience has been primarily with Microsoft Windows.

As Torvalds tells it, "The first day ... when they were giving me a feel for what went on at Transmeta. I went back to the hotel that evening and I thought, "These people are CRAZY!" This was more than three years ago, when Transmeta had not a single chip. The simulations ran at GLACIAL speed. Still, The next day, I basically decided that, if I am to go to work for a company, I want to go to work for a company that does something fun - something interesting. And the first, initial reaction that, 'These people are crazy!' is a positive reaction in that sense." So why choose a chip company, when every Linux start-up in the world was after him? Torvalds explains, "I've obviously gotten a lot of job offers from Linux companies, but I didn't want to polarize the Linux market. I'm really happy being an engineer at a company that is very interested in Linux, but is not seen as a Linux company. We're a chip company where Linux is seen as part of a much larger strategy - and that's something I find very comfortable. Besides, Transmeta has been able to give me opportunities that I wouldn't otherwise have had. It's also a very cool vehicle for doing debugging, when you control the whole chip!" And Torvalds' skill as a debugger is legendary around Transmeta. "He's a god," says Dave Taylor, a co-developer of the original Quake who gave up being CEO of his own company to work for Transmeta. "He can look at a Linux display and somehow predict, just from the way it misbehaves, exactly where, in 100,000 lines of code, the problem is. And, nine times out of 10, he's right."

http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2003052802126 NWDTPB

Please, read about the final decision of the city. It is official - 14000 computers move to Linux. Huge win for Open Source. The snowball starts rolling..

Read it here

SCO, in fact, has not sued IBM for copyright or patent infringment. They are suing in Utah State court for misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, interference with contract and breach of contract.

Also Korea seems to be interested as well!

But anyone who takes an honest look at total TCO will see that MS/Intel's price point can't be beat.

Really? Here is a report of a study that claims exactly the opposite.

Your statement is demonstratably false.

KTH is just sucking up his ass in any way they can, even by giving him a honorary doctorate after Linus got it from Stockhom university, KTH's rival (Slashdot covered Linus).

It's all in the money.

What I fear is that a way to win the case could be IBM showing some hidden card in their software patents pool. What about something generic enough to say "I own the patents on multitasking"? or concurrent file access, or even the "while" loop, something in some way that disables SCO claims but puts on the table something big enough to be considered a threat to all the industry. Is like using atomic bombs in a war, after one of the parts uses one, all the others feel validated to do the same and we all lose.

"Accordingly, we are currently reevaluating our relationship with the SCO Group," Seibt continued. "That said, we want to very clearly and unequivocally voice our support of the ideals and goals of UnitedLinux and the Linux community."

It's happening already. Check out the selected comments by Suse's CEO. Didn't think about that happening, eh Darl? Or is it that you just didn't care?

Maybe for this that SuSE is now reevaluating their relationship with SCO

Filings link

> The most important threat to the survival of free software is the concept of "trusted computing," which really means the building of hardware you as a user can't trust at all.

I'm a contributor at OpenCores, a hardware equivalent of sourceforge.

Many moons ago, one of the list subscribers emailed the FSF (not sure who was the contact, but I think it was RMS). At the time the FSF didn't seem to be interested. RMS has also written that the FSF is not interested in free hardware. His arguments seem to revolve around copyright not applying to physical objects and the fact that hardware cannot be copied like software.

RMS (and the FSF since he is speaking for them) seems to have misunderstood modern hardware design. Engineers no longer sit in labs surrounded by piles of circuit boards and logic chips.

Today's hardware is converging with software. Typically a generic Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) is used as an implementation platform, with desktop manufacturing in the future. The definition of the system is written in a hardware description language (HDL), and is covered by copyright. Saying free hardware is not relevant is like saying free software is not relevant because the system on which it runs (a PC) cannot be copyrighted.

What will convince the FSF to change its position?

HDL by any other name is software. It is copyrightable, copiable and modifiable and deserves to have its freedom fully recognised.

HDL has the additional hurdle that it can describe patented objects. As such it is subject to threats by patent holders, even though one could argue that it is only the object, and not its description, which is patentable. Laws such as the CBDTPA will only increase the number of threats made against free hardware.

HDL descriptions already been removed from OpenCores due to theatened patent action. (See nnARM project.) This fledgling movement does not have the resources to even consider fighting such threats. It badly needs the protection of an organisation like the FSF.

Free hardware might not yet be on people's radar, but it will be once 'trusted' computing takes hold.

IBM, AMD Become Part of UnitedLinux

This should have been somewhere on Slashdot...

This is from 3 years ago, but it should give one a good base to start from. It gives most of the functionality of Exchange server http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=1999-11 -07-001-05-NW-LF

some noobie comes in *demanding* we help him fix the production mail server he just trashed by installing RH8 or the newest kernel (dev or otherwise).

My god. Someone came to IRC for support. It's not like he's been told "Linux is perfect for buisnesses. It is The Way and The Light.". So he switches, and runs into a problem. So he turns to The Community, because afterall he's been told it's friendly, informative, and always willing to help.

And what does he find? People that say: "How dare you want help from me?" , "RTFM!" , "You shouldn't have done that you idiot."

Now tell me again why linux support is so much better than anything an unnamed megacorp gives.

> MS: OpenSource Bad
> OS: Microsoft Bad
> Japan: Why?

> MS&OS: Shit good question.

Actually, I think the OS response would be: see here (the open letter from the Peruvian Congressman). And MS will probably have some dubious claims about how untrained monkeys can't necessarily administer linux/bsd boxes.

But I agree that it's a good thing that Japan is allowing all interested parties into the debate.

Great idea...

The press release may be found here

Our case study may be found here

Hmm, well, meanwhile at LinuxToday... http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2002-11 -11-013-26-NW-DT-SW-0001

The charitable group that Mr. Gates started with his wife, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, is now giving away $1.2 billion a year. Mr. Gates said he was pleased that its first major philanthropic effort, the library project, had helped to narrow the digital divide.

I'm not going to minimize my attachments by giving it all away, though, so you evangelists for a zillion worthy causes can just calm down out there and forget about hitting me up for megabucks. I am *not* going to be a soft touch, and will rudely refuse all importunities.

Just for the record, Andreas Pour has responded to DEP's article with an email that was posted over on Linuxtoday.com. The response can be found here. At least, that is the only place I have read it....

Andreas Pour's response just says that he's not going to speak to DEP because he's not fond of the things that DEP has written.

His response to the Kompany's Shawn Gordon dismisses everything as, "a non-issue and just part of some mud-slinging campaign."

"ad hominem" simply means attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument, itself. IMO this is what Andreas is doing, which is a shame because the argument itself needs answering, namely:

The KDE League's web site was down, it hadn't filed its Deleware paperwork as an organization, and it hasn't made any press releases since its launch in 2000. If the KDE League is still in business, what is it doing other than collecting quarterly $500 or $2,500 checks from its ten members?

There's no doubt that Andreas is the person who should answer this question: he's the chairman of the KDE League, he's listed in the KDE Promotion FAQ as the KDE League's point of contact, and, for crying out loud, a reverse lookup on the phone number in kdeleague.org's whois address gives Andreas' phone number in an apartment complex.

Which brings my two questions:

If the KDE League is really just Andreas, is he just pocketing these members' checks, or is it being fed back to KDE Developers?

If there really are other members, why on Earth are they letting him destroy the League's credibility this way?

The only reason I can think of for the KDE League to not answer is if it's done nothing since its inception.

The only reason I can think of for other League members to stay quiet is that either there aren't any, or that they know the jig is up and would rather let Andreas take the heat.

Hey now its released!!

Use Dillo:

Dillo

It's not perfect, but it is extremely fast, and very useful. It even got a mention on Linux Today:

Linux today article on Dillo.

Erm, I think you mean http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2002-09 -10-008-26-NW-SW.

The part about not using the MDI style applications is in my opinion _very_ wrong. I often have 3 or more applications open when working and I find it damn confusing to look at all of them at the same time. Ever hit something outside the program you are working in and then spend time finding your way back?

The gui is just not designed to let me move around with speed and ease. Linux and Windows are much better at that.

Bottom line: Macs are too expensive and slow. I like my new dual mp 2000+; it's cheaper and faster (and it runs Linux properly!).

This reminds me of the Domino Theory as the USA applied it to SE Asia in the 1960's, as the main excuse to go into Vietnam.

Speaking of The Domino Theory: Did you notice the list of related stories?

Linux Journal: Pakistan Government Looks to the Linux Users Group(Jul 15, 2002)

Update: Linux Bill Introduced in Finland(Jun 18, 2002)

Update: Ending Microsoft FUD: An Interview with Peruvian Congressman Villanueva(May 21, 2002)

GNU.org.pe: Peruvian Congressman's Open Letter to Microsoft(May 07, 2002)

Enterprise Linux Today: Venezuelan Bank Marks Major Financial Deployment of Linux for S/390(May 03, 2001)

Looks like a row of dominoes to me. B-)

This reminds me of the Domino Theory as the USA applied it to SE Asia in the 1960's, as the main excuse to go into Vietnam.

Speaking of The Domino Theory: Did you notice the list of related stories?

Linux Journal: Pakistan Government Looks to the Linux Users Group(Jul 15, 2002)

Update: Linux Bill Introduced in Finland(Jun 18, 2002)

Update: Ending Microsoft FUD: An Interview with Peruvian Congressman Villanueva(May 21, 2002)

GNU.org.pe: Peruvian Congressman's Open Letter to Microsoft(May 07, 2002)

Enterprise Linux Today: Venezuelan Bank Marks Major Financial Deployment of Linux for S/390(May 03, 2001)

Looks like a row of dominoes to me. B-)

This reminds me of the Domino Theory as the USA applied it to SE Asia in the 1960's, as the main excuse to go into Vietnam.

Speaking of The Domino Theory: Did you notice the list of related stories?

Linux Journal: Pakistan Government Looks to the Linux Users Group(Jul 15, 2002)

Update: Linux Bill Introduced in Finland(Jun 18, 2002)

Update: Ending Microsoft FUD: An Interview with Peruvian Congressman Villanueva(May 21, 2002)

GNU.org.pe: Peruvian Congressman's Open Letter to Microsoft(May 07, 2002)

Enterprise Linux Today: Venezuelan Bank Marks Major Financial Deployment of Linux for S/390(May 03, 2001)

Looks like a row of dominoes to me. B-)