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"?"

15 of 571 comments (clear)

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

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

  2. WHERE MAH REPARASHUN AT, BITCH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Story here

  3. Re:Dear, Shit-eating fool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Thanks Britney I got the hint.

  4. Re:Yes it would hurt their case by Dominic_Mazzoni · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

    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."

    So, the part I don't understand is, if the people who wrote the bill of rights thought that everyone should always have the right to bear arms under any circumstances, then why did they put it in the context of a "well regulated Militia"?

    I think that people should be allowed to own guns...but I think that background checks and waiting periods are very reasonable and definitely constitutional. I also think that a mandatory safety course wouldn't be a bad idea...after all, we have one for driving, why not gun ownership?

  5. Re:Yes it would hurt their case by be-fan · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    My question is, what about "well regulated" doesn't *he* understand?

    --
    A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  6. 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

  7. SF GIANTS vs OAKLAND A's IN 2003 WORLD SERIES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Count on it!

    1. Re:SF GIANTS vs OAKLAND A's IN 2003 WORLD SERIES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Who gives a fuck? It's baseball, watching paint dry is more interesting.

  8. Re:Yes it would hurt their case by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    "So, the part I don't understand is, if the people who wrote the bill of rights thought that everyone should always have the right to bear arms under any circumstances, then why did they put it in the context of a "well regulated Militia"?"

    Because when they wrote it, they assumed all adult white males were in the milita.

    Over time that changed but the words in the Constitution remained the same.

    Around the turn of the century, Congress passed a law that explained the milita aspect somewhat.

    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

    The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

    The classes of the militia are -
    The organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia

    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/312.html

    Sec. 312. - Militia duty: exemptions

    The following persons are exempt from militia duty:

    The Vice President.

    The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States and Territories, and Puerto Rico.

    Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.

    Customhouse clerks.

    Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.

    Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.

    Pilots on navigable waters.

    Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.

    A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant

    So what the NRA goes by for it's outlook on the citizen milita here is US Code

  9. 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?

  10. 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
  11. jhtml and firebird by jd142 · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Did anyone else using Firebird .6 have problems with the jhtml link? First it asked me what to use to open the file, so I told it firebird. This opened a new browser window instead of a new tab (I had middle clicked) and the new window was empty.

    So I closed Firebird and went back to /. and clicked on the link again and then it opened just fine.

  12. 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.
  13. 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. :-)