Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

What if SCO is Right?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the stuff-to-think-about dept.

b17bmbr writes " What if SCO is right. Bruce Perens was quoted with this scenario. "it's entirely possible that SCO was inadvertently distributing its own proprietary Unix code in its version of Linux. In that case, SCO would've already released its Unix source code into open source". But here's the catch: Does this validate Microsoft's view of a "viral GPL"?"

7 of 571 comments (clear)

  1. Doesn't matter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What does it matter? EULAs aren't valid anyways!

  2. Re:Yes it would hurt their case (OT) by finkployd · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    If this were true, then why did they use the phrase "the people" to mean something completely different in this amendment than in every other amendment that includes that phrase?

    That said, I think your position is very rational (regarding safety courses, background checks, etc) and I totally agree.

    Finkployd

  3. Re:Yes it would hurt their case by treat · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    then why did they put it in the context of a "well regulated Militia"?


    Did you check the OED to see what "well regulated" meant when it was written in the constitution?

  4. 2nd amendment by Jim+Hall · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The full text of the 2nd amendment is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    I thought it was to arm Bears ... damn, I've really screwed things up.

    1. Re:2nd amendment by Anonymous+DWord · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Remember, only YOU can prevent gun control!

      --
      "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
  5. Re:Yes it would hurt their case by fishbowl · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    >then why did they put it in the context of
    >a "well regulated Militia"?

    They were trying to say that, ultimately, it will be up to YOU to regulate them. The militia will be operating under a command of tyranny, and it will then become your responsibility to put them back in their place.

    Consider that the people who wrote that clause had recently had some experience with that very unthinkable situation.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  6. And as Mike Moore demonstrates ... by konmaskisin · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ... if there are no limits to the scope of the Amendment, then suitcase nuclear weapons are protected under the US constitution. Under the 2nd amendment the people have the right to store chemical weapons and nuclear materials and any others necessary for protection against the state ...

    As we have seen lately, Sadaam Hussein of course does not have these rights, but American citizens and corporations do have the right ... under the constitution ... to bear weapons of mass destruction. If the US signed a treaty to reduce nuclear weapons there's nothing stopping Lockheed (a private corporation) from continuing to produce, store and sell any weapons it wants. The right of Lockheed to do so is protected under the Constitution.

    You may disagree, but the Constitution and the Bible are more important than world peace, safety in your neighborhood and the sniveling cry baby complaints of "liberals" so quit complaining and get a job ...

    ps: Please spell "Amendment" correctly and use capital letters when refering to the holy Constitution of the USA. :-)