Slashdot Mirror


Torvalds Says Linux IP Is Sound

An anonymous reader submits: "In an interview with CRN, Linus Torvalds says he's confident there won't be any IP problems discovered in Linux. In fact, Torvalds, says he was extra careful with issues like the IBM Read Copy Update code."

336 comments

  1. Whew by sulli · · Score: 5, Funny

    What a relief. It would really suck to have to switch back to IPX after all these years.

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
    1. Re:Whew by pc486 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think you misinterperted the title. It really means that Linux IP consists of variations in air pressure.

      :)

    2. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ARCnet forever!

    3. Re:Whew by Aliencow · · Score: 0

      I think you misinterperted the title. It really is a joke. :)

    4. Re:Whew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I had been hoping for a good NetBEUI stack. Guess it's never to be.

    5. Re:Whew by isorox · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think you misinterperted the title. It really means that Linux IP consists of variations in air pressure.

      IP and air, then surely you'd need something like RFC 1149

    6. Re:Whew by jlaxson · · Score: 1

      It would really suck to have to switch back to IPX after all these years.

      Yeah, what would we do without the evil bit?

      --
      On Apple Input Peripherals: They're okay, I guess, but I was really hoping for a one-key keyboard and a 109-button mouse
    7. Re:Whew by vidarlo · · Score: 1

      Here is the (as far as I know) worlds first RFC 1149 implementation, in english, with pictures and Alan Cox. (Yes. He is real.)

    8. Re:Whew by isorox · · Score: 1

      Yeah, a friend at uni lived about 2 miles away, and didnt know anything about it until he read it in the news :)

    9. Re:Whew by panty-sniffer · · Score: 1

      I want to have Linus' baby because I am such a linux fanboy. I brush my teeth with a toothbrush that says "linux" and I shaved Tux into my nether-regions.

  2. Please [gG]od by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    make the TCP/IP jokes stop, please!

    1. Re:Please [gG]od by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      OK, on with the UDP/IP jokes!

    2. Re:Please [gG]od by El · · Score: 5, Funny

      In other news, RIAA says sound is IP!

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    3. Re:Please [gG]od by NanoGator · · Score: 5, Funny

      "make the TCP/IP jokes stop, please! "

      No no no, everybody make your jokes about IP, freely!

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    4. Re:Please [gG]od by sharkey · · Score: 1
      In other news, RIAA says sound is IP!

      And all the artists in the world will starve unless their TCP proposals are mandated by law, violators subject to death.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    5. Re:Please [gG]od by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Puddle on the bathroom floor," by IP Squint.

    6. Re:Please [gG]od by kasperd · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      How do they dare trying to steal an abbreviation that for years has meant Internet Protocol. They talk about rights, but who is it, that go out and steal abbreviations. And BTW please God make ignorants stop using the term TCP/IP when they really don't know what they are talking about.

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    7. Re:Please [gG]od by ivanmarsh · · Score: 1

      ACK RST

    8. Re:Please [gG]od by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

      Lordy, it's humor like that that keeps me coming back to /. ;))

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  3. Re:Linux IP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bwhahaha, mod parent up!

  4. Torvalds Says Linux IP Is 'sound'!? by wackybrit · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Linux intellectual property is really sound, and not code? Oh great, now the RIAA are gunna bust our nuts for distributing Linux for free!

    1. Re:Torvalds Says Linux IP Is 'sound'!? by pyros · · Score: 1
      RIAA are gunna bust our nuts for distributing Linux for free

      so is putting a linux iso on an ftp site the net equivalent of an open-ended booty call?

      ps - I think you meant bust our balls, busting a nut is general considered a good thing.

    2. Re:Torvalds Says Linux IP Is 'sound'!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unless the nut ends up in your colon.

  5. Shock; Surprise by Sargent1 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Huh. And I was all prepared for him to say, "I expect all kinds of IP problems in Linux."

    On a serious note, it is good to know he was thinking of these issues for some time.

    1. Re:Shock; Surprise by Pieroxy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, don't you find it suspicious that Linus comes up with this after such a long time !?!?

      It sounds weird to me. Why didn't he say that in the first place ?

    2. Re:Shock; Surprise by Trolling4Dollars · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Errr... no. He probably went through the code with a fine toothed comb (or a decent pattern matching app) and found nothing infringing because there never was anything infringing to begin with.

    3. Re:Shock; Surprise by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, don't you find it suspicious that Linus comes up with this after such a long time !?!?

      It sounds weird to me. Why didn't he say that in the first place ?


      If he came out with it in the first place he wouldn't have been able to say that he'd been thinking about IP issues for a long time.

      BTM

      --
      That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
    4. Re:Shock; Surprise by Xzzy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That, or it took him this long to go over it with a lawyer before opening his mouth on the subject.

    5. Re:Shock; Surprise by Pieroxy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This has to be the most stupid post ever.

      How could he find something infringing when he doesn't know the code it's supposed to infringe ?

      Can you tell me how he could possibly know if IBM put some of SCO's code into Linux!!!!!!! Except if he has its own copy of the SCO code of course...

    6. Re:Shock; Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      KOSHER ?!?

      /hides

    7. Re:Shock; Surprise by Steeltoe · · Score: 1

      If he came out with it in the first place he wouldn't have been able to say that he'd been thinking about IP issues for a long time.

      So you mean he's just begun? ;-)

    8. Re:Shock; Surprise by interiot · · Score: 1

      grep -r SCO /usr/src/linux

    9. Re:Shock; Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you tell me how he could possibly know if IBM put some of SCO's code into Linux!!!!!!! Except if he has its own copy of the SCO code of course...

      Yup. Without actually comparing it to SCO code, he can't be 100% sure. However, he can identify every piece of code that was contributed by IBM, whether it is still in the code base or not. He can find both the current code, and the code as it was submitted by IBM. He can take what IBM submitted and ask them to do the comparison. At that point, he has to trust them.

      IBM can certainly benefit from that comparison as well. If they can show, based on Linus's records and their own comparison that nothing they contributed to the Linux kernel came from SCO, it strengthens their defense. And if they did happen to find a smoking gun, they would still accomplish two useful things. First, from their point of view, they can show both that the scope of the problem is limited and that they have actually taken steps to correct it, showing that they have acted in good faith. Second, they could give the Linux kernel hackers a chance to remove the SCO code as early as possible.

    10. Re:Shock; Surprise by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      That one is probably one of the valid reason I didn't think about. Very possible and very wise in fact.

    11. Re:Shock; Surprise by Pieroxy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This has to be the stupidiest post ever... um, oh wait, that was the grand-parent of this one... oh well.

      Linus would have seen every line of code

      Sure, so what?

      I mean EVERY line

      Sure, so what ?

      It's probably pretty easy for him to spot something that he didn't approve for the mainstream kernel.

      Ok, so you mean if some code is infringing SCO patents/copyright, he wouldn't have approved it.

      Let's say an IBM engineer submits a change that is actually a copy paste from the SCO codebase. How would Linus know about that? How would he know the engineer did not came up with the algorithm himself but copied it from some source Linus doesn't have access to?

      Dude, you need to think before writing.

      I know that I can go through stuff I've written over the years and easily tell you when I made changes

      Would be relevant if Linus wrote every single line of the kernel. But irrelevant in the current situation, you have to give me this one.

      and why and how every line of code works

      Every line of code works for a very good reason, whether it is original of CCed from SCO codebase.

    12. Re:Shock; Surprise by vuud · · Score: 1

      It could be for two reasons. I remember reading that Linus refused to sign an NDA to look at the code. Recently there was that german guy who they forgot to have sign the NDA and blabbed about the contents of the code. That could have been enough for Linus to know what parts they are talking about. Just a thought.

  6. If linux is sound.... by Keebler71 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Then if it falls in the forest does anyone hear it?

    --
    "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    1. Re:If linux is sound.... by Jad+LaFields · · Score: 5, Funny

      Depends on what version you have. The pre 2.6s have a much louder forestfall property, and so can be heard better.

      --
      [SIG] It's like putting a moose in the blender -- a recipe for disaster!
    2. Re:If linux is sound.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the correct question is, if linux falls in the forest and nobody hears it, where were they?

    3. Re:If linux is sound.... by FroMan · · Score: 1

      Depends, does the kernel tree have ALSA drivers or OSS drivers?

      Assuming the forest is compiled with OSS support, both should work (through ALSA's OSS emulation). If the forest only works with ALSA sound and the tree only has OSS drivers, well, then most likely no one will hear it.

      Sort of like this comment, as this was a yesterday's article.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    4. Re:If linux is sound.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if a SCO lawyer is observing the event.

  7. He knows that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nt

  8. Re:Linux IP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Joke. Is funny. Laugh.

  9. yes, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    what does it sound like?

    1. Re:yes, but by Gleng · · Score: 5, Funny
      what does it sound like?

      cat /boot/vmlinuz* > /dev/audio

      --
      "Proudly Posting Without Reading The Article"
    2. Re:yes, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whenever I do 'cat /boot/vmlinuz > /dev/audio' I hear god speak to me ....

    3. Re:yes, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to do "head /boot/vmlinuz", when my terminal was in "graphic mode" or whatever et was displaying gargled characters. It was before I learnt the command "reset"

  10. Re:Linux IP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its obvious some people don't read the article before posting... heh. Intellectual property man.

  11. Linus Torvalds = The Arbiter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Damn, this guy is cool. He gets to the point. Guess linux users don't need to worry about SCO anymore. Heh, not surprising since Slashdot stopped it's once-a-day-SCO-story.

    Anyway, even though this interview is really short, Linus has good points. The kernel submission system is very open, unlike propriatary systems, and if there is a problem, it can be traced.

    1. Re:Linus Torvalds = The Arbiter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Anyway, even though this interview is really short,...

      It's short? Thanks for the info, I might read the article then.

    2. Re:Linus Torvalds = The Arbiter by chiasmus1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I always liked the point of view that Linus gave. He always seems cool and relaxed and seems to be able to step back and see this from a relaxing point of view. The SCO issue has some people really blowing a lot of hot air and has caused a lot of worry. It is good to have someone well known who can tell everyone to not worry about this thing. Telling everyone it will pass.

    3. Re:Linus Torvalds = The Arbiter by borgheron · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, I believe the stories stopped due to the restraining order preventing SCO from spreading their crap so as not to bias any court decision.

      GJC

      --
      Gregory Casamento
      ## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
  12. sco can have my ..... by spotlight2k3 · · Score: 4, Funny

    linux when they pry it from my cold dead hands, no wait, i meant to post that on the nra site. good to see linus finally helping to clarify things

    1. Re:sco can have my ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is funny about maligning millions of legal, and legitimate gun rights supporters?

    2. Re:sco can have my ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny to see your Charlatan Heston cock-eatin' asses get all worked up, that's what.

    3. Re:sco can have my ..... by juan2074 · · Score: 1

      The poster was only making fun of one person -- Charleton Heston.

  13. What i find most amusing... by NoTheory · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Linus seems to be getting more and more annoyed with each one of these interviews. Why don't all these various online news sites take a hint? ;) at least ask him about -something- other than SCO SCO SCO. Give the poor man a break.

    --
    There are lives at stake here!
    1. Re:What i find most amusing... by Jad+LaFields · · Score: 1

      Wait, what's SCO SCO SCO? Is that like a triple-attack of pointless lawsuits? That almost sounds dangerous.

      --
      [SIG] It's like putting a moose in the blender -- a recipe for disaster!
    2. Re:What i find most amusing... by snol · · Score: 1

      you only get Santorum if they use lube.

    3. Re:What i find most amusing... by Feztaa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Linus seems to be getting more and more annoyed with each one of these interviews.

      It's no surprise. Did you read the bit where he says he doesn't like customers? That really hit the nail on the head; Linus is just a geek like the rest of us, and he just wants to play with his toys. The more time he spends talking about the stupid lawsuit, or talking with customers, or whatever, the less time he spends writing code, and that bothers him.

    4. Re:What i find most amusing... by santorum · · Score: 0

      Hail!

    5. Re:What i find most amusing... by Doppleganger · · Score: 1

      It's like saying Hastur three times, but with more danger of losing your mind afterwards.

    6. Re:What i find most amusing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude, you rock. Savage is the man.

    7. Re:What i find most amusing... by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

      You are guilty of using the SCO(TM) trademark without permission in an online forum, prepare to meet our lawyers or you can settle out of court for 1 billion dollars!

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    8. Re:What i find most amusing... by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Hastur Hastur Hastur...hahaah, nothing happe....arhrhrhs, noooooo, Shub Niggurath!!!

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
  14. Hmm... by MoThugz · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Torvalds: The biggest effect by far has just been a lot of time wasted on discussion.


    All I got to say is...
    "..."

    'Nuff said... back to some kernel hacking!
    1. Re:Hmm... by Eccles · · Score: 2, Funny

      Torvalds: The biggest effect by far has just been a lot of time wasted on discussion.

      Think where Linux could be if there wasn't a /. !

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
  15. Re:GNAA Says Linux is gay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Why you jingoist, America-centric pig! I can't tell you how offended I am!

    I'm European, and I can think of thousands like me who would love to join your organization, but it sounds like only Americans are eligible to join? Is this true?

  16. Re:Torvald's isn't a lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cut the bullshit. Despite the gain in popularity of Slashdot, the average IQ of slashdotters hasn't dropped so far that they would fail to see through such transparent astroturfing. Try again later, a bit more intelligence next time huh?

  17. Re:Shock; Surprise-IP burr. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "On a serious note, it is good to know he was thinking of these issues for some time."

    Isn't this a sea change from his "don't worry about IP"?

  18. Re:Torvald's isn't a lawyer by TrIp0d · · Score: 0

    I don't get it. As if we are not getting bombarded with enough spam and banners on the net, some twisted bean counter had to come up with the idea of getting rich by claiming rights to the very pavement on which the Information Superhighway was built with, TCP/IP.

    Well, I say it's too late. TCP/IP has been used by the public too long by now, so tough sh!t.

  19. And how would he know for sure, you ask? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Because he's one baaaad computer hackin' mutha fucka.

    1. Re:And how would he know for sure, you ask? by icedcool · · Score: 1

      Whatch yo Mowth! ...
      Jus talkin bout Torvalds

      --
      Most people aren't thought about after they're gone. "I wonder where Rob got the plutonium" is better than most get.
  20. Re:Torvald's isn't a lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi Sir

    I need to hire a lawyer, can you help me? The replies you got were rude!!! Sincerely MR IQ!

  21. Re:Linus regard for customers by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Linus has never tried to go commercial with Linux. He avoids this side of things. I think this is a strength. Commercial OSs are driven by the desire to sell and as a ressult suffer technically.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  22. The circle is complete by Fux+the+Pengiun · · Score: 5, Funny

    About time this came back around. I've been playing this throught my head over and over again, every time this SCO thing comes up, and finally we see the way it really works out.

    See, we know SCO is like Darth Vader, and Microsoft is like the Emperor, pulling his strings. Now, we always thought IBM was Luke, kind of, in that they're the ones having to fight off Vader, but I couldn't quite figure out who Linus was. At first, I figured he was Han Solo, with the helping and the fighting and all, and Alan Cox is obviously Chewbacca (just check the hair).

    But now I think we see that Linus is really a mix of Obi-Wan and Yoda, because he's helping and guiding, but not really fighting himself. At least I thought he was Yoda, just except for the lying (I mean, wtf didn't Yoda ever tell Luke SCO was his father?) but now we see Obi-Wan taking a more active role, actually standing up to SCO! So we're at the "full circle" part, where Linus tells SCO that if he strikes him down (i.e., inspects the code) he'll become more powerful (i.e. open sourced and GPL protected) than he can possibly imagine.

    See, now it all makes sense! Now we just need Luke (IBM) to blow up the "Death Star" (frivilous lawsuits) with a proton torpedo (the GPL) shot down an "exhaust tube" (an exhaust tube). I hope that cleared it all up for everybody.

    --
    Consensual sex is boring.
    1. Re:The circle is complete by bad_fx · · Score: 1

      *Head explodes*

    2. Re:The circle is complete by Victa · · Score: 2, Funny

      About time this came back around. I've been playing this throught my head over and over again, every time this SCO thing comes up, and finally we see the way it really works out... ...Blah Blah Blah... ...shot down an "exhaust tube" (an exhaust tube). I hope that cleared it all up for everybody.

      Hopefully the "exhaust tube" is Darl's backside...

    3. Re:The circle is complete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I can't imagine that anyone would have compared IBM to Luke Skywalker in 1977. In fact, wasn't IBM the evil empire at one time?

    4. Re:The circle is complete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You haven't seen Episode III yet. Luke's terrible twos were pretty terrible.

    5. Re:The circle is complete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but but but but I thought the Death Star was Windows. Massively complex, massively frail.

    6. Re:The circle is complete by debrain · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think SCO is more like Jar Jar. You just wish it would shut its trap.

    7. Re:The circle is complete by XO · · Score: 0, Redundant

      'shot down an "exhaust tube" (an exhaust tube)' ..

      shouldn't that be...

      'shot down an "exhaust tube" (darl mcbride's anus)' ... ?

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    8. Re:The circle is complete by DeltaSigma · · Score: 4, Funny

      SCO: " IBM, I am your father!"
      IBM: " Nooo! That's impossible!"
      SCO: "Search your feelings you know it is true.
      IBM: "No, I mean that's stupid. I mean, look at you. Heh, you're shorter than I am. I could kick you right off this platform and you'd hit the wall before you even began to descend. I mean, come on, the force isn't exactly strong with you..."

    9. Re:The circle is complete by Valar · · Score: 1

      You forgot one thing: The force isn't strong with SCO.

    10. Re:The circle is complete by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 1

      I was really confused about this whole issue until you explained it like that. Thanks.

      --
      Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
    11. Re:The circle is complete by Nucleon500 · · Score: 1

      Also like Jar Jar, SCO began the Clone wars. Soon the Jedi (IBM) and the clones (Linux) will destroy the droids (proprietary Unix), but then Palpatine (Microsoft) will embrace and extend the cool CG clones (Linux) to create the wimpy and weak Stormtroopers (SFU), who will make a Death Star (Windows 98), which will explode (BSOD) because of Luke (Linus), and another Death Star (.NET) which isn't finished, but is destroyed by Han (Parrot) and Lando (Mono), and the Ewoks (*BSD) will have a party, and Yoda (Stallman) will continue to tell us to use the Force (GNU/Linux) instead of the Dark Side (just Linux) from his home on the upper-left corner of the screen (Slashdot logo).

    12. Re:The circle is complete by stwrtpj · · Score: 1
      ... and Alan Cox is obviously Chewbacca

      I thought RMS was Chewbacca.

      --
      Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
    13. Re:The circle is complete by sharkey · · Score: 1

      No, SCO is like Roscoe P. Coltrane.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    14. Re:The circle is complete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would have said Steve Balmer myself.

      DEVELOPERS!

      mac.

    15. Re:The circle is complete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Use the farce, SCO, use the farce!

      Oh, wait, never mind ...

    16. Re:The circle is complete by munter · · Score: 1
      hahahahahha.

      The question is whether Star Wars is a more appropriate analogy or the Dukes of Hazzard.

      hmm...Who the fuck would the ewoks be?

    17. Re:The circle is complete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hopefully the "exhaust tube" is Darl's backside...


      and Darl/SCO (Dark Side) gets passed the K-Y Jelly (k-y jelly), preparing to bend over...

    18. Re:The circle is complete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, no. SCO doesn't deserve Star Wars.

      SCO: "IBM, I am your father's dogwalker's cousin's college buddy's former roommate." [Can't remember exact quote right now.]
      IBM: "So what does that make us?"
      SCO: "Absolutely NOTHING!" *maniacal laughter*

  23. Does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    A mathematician is saying that a-b = (a+b)(a-b)? There must be at least one lawyer payed by a rich company that could win a case against it...

    1. Re:Does it matter? by panurge · · Score: 2, Informative
      Of course. Right up to the Supreme Court, scientific evidence is only acceptable in courts of law after lawyers have pronounced on it (which of course, as arts graduates, they are so well qualified to do).

      In fact, a lawyer actually commented on a case won by Abraham Lincoln in which evidence of (I believe) the Nautical Almanac that the night in question was moonless, that the evidence should not have been accepted and that the defense should have summoned an astronomer who could have been cross-examined by the prosecution. Lawyers fundamentally do not understand scientific method (several in my immediate family.)

      --
      Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
    2. Re:Does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      M'lud, it is the prosecution's submission that a and b are members of a non-commutative ring....

    3. Re:Does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fecking mathematicians

  24. Nice response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to a troll. Just talk about completely unrelated stuff. If you were going to hang your karma-whoring comment off another one, at least you could have done it farther up the page.

  25. Say what? by The+Bungi · · Score: 5, Interesting
    In fact, Torvalds, says he was extra careful with issues like the IBM Read Copy Update code

    I thought he didn't care? As in "I don't want to know what we're putting in, don't tell me"? And now he was "extra careful"? Or is this some other type of IP he's referring to?

    1. Re:Say what? by XO · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, I think he said that, but it was already out of the bag at that point that RCU was code that IBM needed to make sure it had the rights to distribute.

      So, he doesn't want to know in the future where things come from, as in this type of law, ignorance DOES make one innocent .. whereas with more physical laws, ignorance of a law does NOT make one innocent...

      But, at this point, he already knew.

      Kind of like where I'm at, we sell a lot of radio transmitters. If someone tells me they are going to take some stuff that's licensed for use only in the U.S., and ship it out to Iran, they sure as hell aren't buying it from me. But, if they don't tell me they are going to send it there, it's none of my business to ask. (ie, I can't say to the guy with the Indian accent, "hey, i notice your accent.. you aren't going to be using these radios outside of the U.S. are you?")

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    2. Re:Say what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Such as when he wrote this:

      From: Linus Torvalds

      To: Daniel Phillips

      Subject: Re: large page patch (fwd) (fwd)

      Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 15:55:08 -0700 (PDT)

      Cc: Alan Cox , , , David Mosberger , "David S. Miller" , , , ,

      On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
      >
      > It goes on in this vein. I suggest all vm hackers have a close look at
      > this. Yes, it's stupid, but we can't just ignore it.

      Actually, we can, and I will.

      I do not look up any patents on _principle_, because (a) it's a horrible
      waste of time and (b) I don't want to know.

      The fact is, technical people are better off not looking at patents. If
      you don't know what they cover and where they are, you won't be knowingly
      infringing on them. If somebody sues you, you change the algorithm or you
      just hire a hit-man to whack the stupid git.

      Linus

    3. Re:Say what? by xyote · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Linus was saying he was extra careful because he knew the RCU patents were owned by IBM and wanted a clear license to use the patents from IBM. What he doesn't know is there is a prior patent, 4,809,168, that is in the public domain so Linux, or anybody for that matter, doesn't really need a license for RCU. Even SCO could implement RCU without a license from IBM.

    4. Re:Say what? by Bootsy+Collins · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh brother, not this again.

      Trade secrets, copyrights, and patents, are three different things, covered by three different sets of legislation and case law, and typically suggest three different approaches for relevant IP management. Most of Linus' comments in the article are about copyright. The LKML entry you reproduce is about patents. Patent issues have nothing to do with the dispute over RCU.

    5. Re:Say what? by NialScorva · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you violate a patent knowingly, it trebles your penalties over violating it unknowingly.

      Thus the simple solution is that engineers should *never* look at patents, so if they violate one, they can limit the damage.

    6. Re:Say what? by Error27 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Linus actually said "we" and not "I". And by "we" he, of course, meant Andrea Arcangeli.

      Here is the link where Andrea says he had IBM send Linus a copy of the RCU patent paper work.

    7. Re:Say what? by stwrtpj · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I thought he didn't care? As in "I don't want to know what we're putting in, don't tell me"? And now he was "extra careful"? Or is this some other type of IP he's referring to?

      He was referring to two different things. The "I don't want to know" bit is about patents, which is a totally different animal from IP and copyright. Knowing about a patent ahead of time is tantamount to being tainted by the patent, and if the patented technology shows up in Linux, you're liable for triple damages because you knew about the patent and it went in anyway (under the US system anyway). You cannot check for patents because of this problem.

      IP and copyright are treated differently under the law. There is a little more leeway in these cases. Simple copyright infringement can be handled by stopping the infringement, especially when it can be shown via an audit trail like the kinds that exist for the Linux kernel that the infringement was not malicious or with forethought on the kernel maintainers (i.e. they thought they were getting code whose use was free and clear).

      --
      Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
    8. Re:Say what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      depends what your definition of "was" was

    9. Re:Say what? by j_w_d · · Score: 1

      I thought he didn't care? As in "I don't want to know what we're putting in, don't tell me"? And now he was "extra careful"? Or is this some other type of IP he's referring to?

      In the interview, he says that they specifically knew that IBM owned particular patents and that he refused to admit the code into the kernel UNTIL IBM licensed it. There is no contradiction betweeen this and his assertion that he does not research patents. The distinction is between a general principle and a particular instance. He might not want to know, but if the information comes out, then it has to be dealt with.

      --
      ------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
  26. Re:Linus regard for customers by MoThugz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fact that not only Linus himself uses Linux can already be considered a success...

    To succeed in the mass market, it has to be put in the market first... Something that Linus did not do!

    Don't confuse Linux (the kernel) with Linux Distributions such as RedHat, Mandrake, Slackware, etc. They distro companies are the ones usually marketing Linux and facing the customers... not Linus himself.

  27. Re:Linus regard for customers by ePhil_One · · Score: 4, Informative
    In nutshell, this comment shows perfectly why Linux will never succeed in the mass market. It is built by developers...for developers. The end users are irrelevant.

    Obviously you don't understand Linus's role in all this. Linus' customers ARE developers. Joe sixpack doesn't go download the latest kernel and install, he goes and picks up RedHat/Debian/Gentoo/Slackware/etc... from CompUSA. RedHat/Debian/Gentoo/Slackware/etc... are Linus's customers, they are the ones that deal with him

    --
    You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
  28. Re:Linus regard for customers by pheared · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Yeah, I've never heard anyone who does or does not deal with customers at a company say something like that. Certainly not at successful companies.

  29. RCU code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1. SCO's lawsuit is about misappropriation of trade secrets
    2. RCU is a patented technology
    3. Patents are publicly viewable
    4. Therefore, RCU cannot be a trade secret

    I don't see any way SCO can have a claim unless the RCU code that IBM donated contained SysV code or code derived from SysV. I seriously doubt IBM would be stupid enough to do that.

    Anyway, since trade secrets are no longer protected once they are publicly revealed, no one should have anything to worry about except possibly IBM.

    1. Re:RCU code by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      1. SCO's lawsuit is about misappropriation of trade secrets
      2. RCU is a patented technology
      3. Patents are publicly viewable
      4. Therefore, RCU cannot be a trade secret

      Wrong. If I invent an algorithm and patent it, the algorithm is protected by the patent monopoly, and anybody who wants to implement that patent has to pay me royalties. If I then implement my algorithm, the implementation is covered by copyright monopoly. The algorithm is not a trade secret, because it is published. The code to implement the algorithm, no matter how trivial, is the trade secret.

    2. Re:RCU code by Malcontent · · Score: 4, Funny

      You are thinking wrong. Remember this is going to be tried in Utah. Here in a nutshell will be basis for this trial.

      1) SCO is a Utah company.
      2) The holding company is also based in Utah (and salt lake).
      3) Son of Orrin Hatch the beloved senator from Utah will be the lawyer for SCO.
      4) Linux is communist software written by hippies.

      Now I ask you good mormon members of this jury. Are you going to rule in favor for this fine mormon company or are you going to rule in favor of a bunch of communist hippies?

      SCO has this trial locked up. They will win it no matter what the evidence. It's going to be up to the appelate court to really decide this. Trust me no jury in salt lake is going to rule against the local boys.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    3. Re:RCU code by On+Lawn · · Score: 1


      You've got issues, my friend.

    4. Re:RCU code by putaro · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh, but you've forgotten IBM's ace in the hole:

      5) SCO stands for Santa Cruz Operation.

      Now we all know that Santa Cruz is full of dope smoking hippies. These dope smoking hippies are trying to PRETEND to be good Mormons and pull one over on IBM which, though we're not a Mormon business, we like to dress like Mormon missionaries.

    5. Re:RCU code by Malcontent · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you ever go to utah (and I have) you will notice two things. Two things people in Utah hate more then hippies and liberals are californians and new yorkers.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    6. Re:RCU code by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 1

      Utah is just about 50% mormon. Salt Lake City reflects that demographic. To think that they will win based on the fact that a mormon jury will find in favor of a mormon company is a little "knee-jerk".

      There are probably cases every day involving mormon and non-mormon people. If there was any real problem with racism (religionism?), I'm sure it would have come to light by now.

      The real question is wheather or not the jury will be able to digest the technical information presented to them.

      There is also another, bigger, issue here. We all "know" IBM will win. The reason? IBM has more money than SCO. I have a feeling that if some company sued MS based on code being misused, we'd want the small-fry to have a chance. SCO should be no different. If they lose, it may be because they were wrong. It may also be because IBM has the dough. We will probably never know for sure.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
    7. Re:RCU code by Mirk · · Score: 1
      1. SCO's lawsuit is about misappropriation of trade secrets
      2. RCU is a patented technology
      3. Patents are publicly viewable
      4. Therefore, RCU cannot be a trade secret
      You forgot:
      ...
      5. Profit!
      :-)
      --

      --
      What short sigs we have -
      One hundred and twenty chars!
      Too short for haiku.
    8. Re:RCU code by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

      They're not suing Linux or Linus, they're suing IBM - and I don't think anybody is going to confuse IBM with hippies ;-)

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    9. Re:RCU code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those mormons stick together, there is no question. The state symbol is a bee-hive (at least on the highways), think about it.

    10. Re:RCU code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sweet! As an alcoholic rastafarian crackwhore from Idaho, I'm sure I'll fit right in!

    11. Re:RCU code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I have a feeling that if some company sued MS based on code being misused, we'd want the small-fry to have a chance. SCO should be no different.

      BZZZZZT!!! Wrong. Most of Slashdot wants SCO to be ripped apart and scattered to the four winds. Why? Because SCO has attacked a sacred cow er... gnu I mean. Gnu, cow, almost the same thing. Ungulates with horns.

    12. Re:RCU code by DarkSarin · · Score: 1

      Okay, I'll bite the flamebate. You good sir, obviously know nothing about Mormon culture (note the capital letter, the name is derived from a proper name and is thus capitalized). The culture strongly favors honesty over any feeling of "good ol' boy network" type of situation that you are implying. As far as "communist hippies" it sounds to me like you, sir, are much more bigoted than the "Mormons" that I am familiar with. As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I personally feel that the philosophy behind Linux (sharing knowledge and ability freely) coincides much more closely with what the church teaches.
      I know that if I, or most of the people with whom I attend church, were on the Jury, the decision would be based on the preponderance of the evidence, not the popular opinion or the bonhomie of someone I might know.
      That all said, does anyone KNOW that SCO is really run by "Mormons?" Pleas tell me.

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    13. Re:RCU code by Thavius · · Score: 1

      One thing I remember about Utah, is a billboard posted right before you entered the state (on private land I believe, but this was a while ago), that said:

      "Please do not laugh at the natives."

      So please, take the advice, and do not laugh at the natives. Just snicker, chortle, or guffaw.

    14. Re:RCU code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Yeah, he's never heard of the united order if he thinks mormons are in some way socialist-phobes.

    15. Re:RCU code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As to whether or not SCO is run by Mormons, Darl McBride is LDS. He used to work at Franklyn Covey and was in charge of their Palm website something or other buisness and he managed to send that down the tank so the work he is doing with SCO is right up there. And while he may be LDS i think when he is asked if he is "honest in all his dealings with his fellow man"... well let's just say if i were his Stake President, he wouldn't be visiting any temples any time soon.
      As for the people saying that SCO will win because all of us Mormons will side with them, i'd be curious as to why they think there have been protests at SCO and the protesters have been largely people from Provo and BYU (an area where it is more like 80% LDS) I honestly don't think any Mormon will look at SCO and side with them because they are in Utah.

    16. Re:RCU code by I_redwolf · · Score: 1

      Yes we will, if they lose it's because they are wrong, this isn't an maybe this/she said/he said litigation. It's not encumbered with much of anything accept SCO's complaint and in the court of law when a barrister is about to battle there needs to be clear and concise factual data to back up claims made. Not speculaton, so in a rape case they'll look for subjects sperm/dna matching, witnessess etc etc. In a case such as this it'll revolve around did IBM break a contract that it had with SCO, if yes then penalties will be applied if no SCO will lose but not only will they lose but based on all the noise that came from SCO especially their CEO before the case, they are open to numerous countersuits which with all the interviews, records, comments made in magazines etc etc will not be hard to prove in the court of law. Normally defamation is a hard thing to prove, but it won't be in the case of SCO losing and it's highly likely that these suits will take place as to make sure a similar situation doesn't occur. Watching case after case after case on all types of subject matter you begin to learn that the more tight lipped a defendant or plaintiff is the more of a case they have. So far, IBM remains quiet; the slashbots speculate more than enough and SCO is slashing and burning every chance they get. The outcome of the case most likely based solely on behavior is that SCO will lose and will be sued into bankruptcy if their current business model won't do that naturally.

    17. Re:RCU code by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      Save the lecture. I and every body who has ever spend anytime in Utah knows what the deal is.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    18. Re:RCU code by paitre · · Score: 1

      You're on crack then.
      I've been there, I have family that live there, and frankly, you can take your opinion and smoke it.

    19. Re:RCU code by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      Let me guess. You are a white mormon.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    20. Re:RCU code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the beehive symbolizes work.

  30. Ok, there is no IP problem in the kernel... by Juiblex · · Score: 3, Funny

    but what about the TCP problems?

    1. Re:Ok, there is no IP problem in the kernel... by rcw-home · · Score: 1

      It's a zero-copy implementation.

    2. Re:Ok, there is no IP problem in the kernel... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heh.

    3. Re:Ok, there is no IP problem in the kernel... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nah, it's cool. They used UDP.

    4. Re:Ok, there is no IP problem in the kernel... by Ashtead · · Score: 1

      UDP? as in Usenet Death Penalty? That could really be a problem!

      --
      SIGBUS @ NO-07.308
  31. Re:Torvald's isn't a lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am your boss at a major Fortune 500 company. You are fired.

  32. He is spinning by Rock+Ridge · · Score: 1

    Linus says something like, "It is just a contract dispute." It is a contract dispute, true; but, what is the contract dispute about? IP?

    1. Re:He is spinning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      no, it's about (alegedly) violating an agreement. It has nothing to do with who owns what, but rather "you said you wouldn't do this, and then you did it".

      Not that that's much more likely than any of the other hot (or body temp) air (or some gas) that SCO has been expelling, but the nature of the complaints (so far) filed are such that the can have no effect on anyone other than IBM; McBride's wet dreams not withstanding.

  33. I don't like customers by unixwin · · Score: 5, Insightful
    How soon will this be misquoted ??
    "CRN: Are you being called in by vendors such as CA and systems integrators to help win over some of these big Linux deals?
    Torvalds: No. I never go to customer meetings. I don't like customers (laughing). "
    --
    -- everyones not everybody and neither is everybody like everyone.
    1. Re:I don't like customers by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      You are too late. It is already misquoted in an previous post ;-)

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    2. Re:I don't like customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How's it a misquote? I mean, there's nothing in the original to suggest he's insincere; he genuinely doesn't like customers. I sympathize.

    3. Re:I don't like customers by nathanh · · Score: 4, Funny

      At least it's better than Darl's impending quote:

      Darl McBride: "Unlike Mr Torvalds, I do like customers... served with some fava beans and a nice chianti."
    4. Re:I don't like customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More likely, it will just be taken out of context.

  34. Linus being naive? by geekee · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When Linus says a contract dispute between IBM and SCO has no bearing on Linux, I think he's being a bit naive. If the code IBM submitted to Linux was a violation of that contract, in addition to damages IBM must pay, a court may place an injunction on shipping Linux, or force Linux users to pay damages as well, depending on the wording of the licensing agreements in the distros being used. Of course this may be pessimistic thinking, but it's not an impossible scenario. Also, if IBM is found in violation of their contract, thats ammunition to pursue further lawsuits against other Linux companies and end-users.

    --
    Vote for Pedro
    1. Re:Linus being naive? by d3faultus3r · · Score: 1

      Very true, maybe Richard Stallman would be a better judge of this than Linus. After all, Linus is a hacker(in the good sense) through and through and they tend not to hold professions in which suits thrive in high esteem. Richard Stallman on the other hand, obviously would have a better grasp of licensing and IP since he did write the GPL and all.

      --
      read my blog
      musings on politics and technol
    2. Re:Linus being naive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think SCO would have any ability to prevent the code from being used as long as IBM is the copyright owner of the code they donated.

      Also, since almost no one who uses Linux makes use most of the technologies in question (LVM, hot swap, JFS, NUMA), any damages are going to be minimal or zero. And I've read RCU is only useful on 8- or 16-way and larger systems. And significant SMP ability was already in Linux years before IBM got involved with Linux.

      The worst that could happen is that SCO demands the code be removed, and I doubt that's possible since it's been licensed under the GPL.

    3. Re:Linus being naive? by iabervon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The court can only place an injunction on IBM. A different court, in a case in which Linux users or other companies shipping Linux are defendants, could place an injunction on them. It would be possible that the suit against IBM could prevent IBM from shipping Linux machines, of course.

      Of course, it is possible that a win against IBM could lead to suits against others. But SCO could at most get IP they own removed, and are much more likely to get themselves countersued by Linux companies who have now been asking for months what they would have to do to avoid violating SCO's IP rights.

      Personally, I think if SCO wins their contract suit against IBM, they'll go after MicroSoft next. After all, they have a contract with MicroSoft and they've gotten a settlement out of MicroSoft before.

    4. Re:Linus being naive? by molarmass192 · · Score: 1

      I'd beg to differ on nobody using LVM or JFS, we use both extensively and a few other backroom server installations I know of also do. As for hot swap and NUMA, that's for bigger hardware than the 1Us I've got. Regardless, the SCO case against Linux is gone, see section 4 of GPL and add Sontag's famous no-no of try to only absolve SCO Linux users.

      --

      Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
    5. Re:Linus being naive? by AstroDrabb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Linux will be Fine no matter what the outcome and no Linux customer or vendor will be touched. Think of it this way. Toshiba and Sony are fighting over some new type of TV. Those TV's are used by customers and sold by stores like BestBuy. If Sony is found guilty, Sony will have to pay damages to Toshiba. No home user is going to be force to return the TV or pay money to Toshiba. Even BestBuy won't be fined. At most BestBuy will no longer be able to sell that model. To put this example into Linux terms, no Linux user will be touched and for any Linux vendor, the most that would happen to them is that they have to ship/use a different version of Linux without the infringing code. FUD, is FUD whether it is from MS or SCO. The sad thing about FUD is that it often confuses people into thinking as you have.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    6. Re:Linus being naive? by zerocool^ · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think if SCO wins their contract suit against IBM, they'll go after MicroSoft next. After all, they have a contract with MicroSoft and they've gotten a settlement out of MicroSoft before.

      Rumor has it that microsoft just dumped an assload of cash into SCO stock.

      But, linux is safe. You can't unring a bell.

      --
      sig?
    7. Re:Linus being naive? by phliar · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If the code IBM submitted to Linux was a violation of that contract, in addition to damages IBM must pay, a court may place an injunction on shipping Linux, or force Linux users to pay damages as well,
      Bah! It is to larff.

      Certainly a rogue court can tell anyone to do anything. Other than that, this claim of yours doesn't hold water. If I buy stolen property in good faith, I cannot be held liable for the crime. The most I can be made to do is to return the stolen property. I hope no one is daft enough to suggest that the billions and billions of Linux users out there all colluded with IBM to do SCO out of their hard-earned intellectual "property."

      In this case, the analogue of "returning the stolen property" is to rip out the offending source code (80 lines of it or whatever they claim today -- if in fact they claim there was a violation of copyright, which is not clear) from the kernel and reimplement it -- perhaps a day's work.

      --
      Unlimited growth == Cancer.
    8. Re:Linus being naive? by Tsu+Dho+Nimh · · Score: 1
      "a court may place an injunction on shipping Linux, or force Linux users to pay damages as well,"
      When the numerous AMD-Intel patent disputes are resolved, does anyone ever make the users ship back their CPUs to the winner? Pay royalties to whichever side won that particular suit?

      No! The losing side pays damages and may have to stop shipping, but end users are not liable for the actions of the manufacturer.

    9. Re:Linus being naive? by JoeBuck · · Score: 1

      Courts typically craft injunctions in the narrowest possible way. An injunction might forbid the distribution of a Linux kernel containing disputed code, but I can't imagine a judge refusing to allow Linux to be distributed after the disputed code is removed.

      Linux is 4.7 million lines of code the last time I checked (2.4.x for some x). The largest piece of code SCO identified to the reviewers as possibly copied was an 80-line segment.

    10. Re:Linus being naive? by geekee · · Score: 1

      Bad analogy. You need to look at your agreement with your Linux distributor, to find out who is responsible. If RedHat says they're not responsible for code that is in violation of patents or copyright, and if you've agreed to that, then SCO may need to go after you instead of RedHat.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    11. Re:Linus being naive? by geekee · · Score: 1

      "If I buy stolen property in good faith, I cannot be held liable for the crime. The most I can be made to do is to return the stolen property."

      IP isn't the same as physcal property. Returning the property might be equivalent to paying for past use and uninstalling the sw, if the court feels that that is appropriate to compensate SCO for harm done to them. You need to look at your agreement with your Linux distributor to see how much liability you've taken on by using the code. They may have tried to waive all responsibility themselves.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
  35. Re:Torvald's isn't a lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dumbass, you don't need to be a lyer er lawyer to know the law within your bounds. You Are A Lyer Arent You?.

  36. Open Source by brownaroo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If a programming project is open source, with an uncontrolled number of people working on its, whats to stop someone comming forward saying I changed module x with code/ideas I stoll form company y in an IP case.
    I know things like GPL try to address IP with open source but have their been any big court cases concerning IP on open source Software to test thing out? (forgive me if I an not aware of some big case, that 99% of everyone always knows about)

    1. Re:Open Source by titzandkunt · · Score: 2, Interesting


      Someone - anyone - can say that they hacked trade secret/patent protected/copyright code into, say, the Linux kernel.

      Unless these claims are matched in the version control and change logs, they'll have a hard time proving it.

      T&K.

      --
      Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable...
    2. Re:Open Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless these claims are matched in the version control and change logs, they'll have a hard time proving it.

      So lets Say they are. Some one who added something to some code x years ago could come forward (perhaps with the push of a company like SCO) and say "I stole my ideas from their IP"
      Now if the code from that program has been built around that part in question where does the IP lie?

    3. Re:Open Source by thisgooroo · · Score: 1

      nothing. nor can any closed source project can stop any of its members include code that he lifted from somewhere else. or do you have any suggestions about hpow to prevent that?

    4. Re:Open Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In an employee contract/company policy there is room to specify that the employee must not do the above. (is this legalgy good enougth)
      How about such agreements for open source projects? How wide spread are their use?

    5. Re:Open Source by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      As it happens, when I temped for Microsoft, I took whole swathes of SCO code and put it into NT. Pretty much NT (including 2000 and XP)'s entire memory management code is based on SCO stuff, together with most of code to handle different motherboard chipsets.

      Actually, I made that up. But had I not told you that, could you have proven otherwise? Would it not have been more difficult than if I'd made up the same stuff about Linux?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    6. Re:Open Source by Tsu+Dho+Nimh · · Score: 1
      whats to stop someone comming forward saying I changed module x with code/ideas I stole from company y

      Can they prove it? Were they working for "Y"? Did they have access to "Y"'s code? Did they submit a patch or a module? And can "Y" prove that they have identical code that predates the submitted code, that has no common ancestor?

      And if "Y"'s code was a trade secret, "Y"'s only recourse is to go after the person who divulged the trade secret, not those who innocently used it. "Y" has to prove that they took the usual precautions with trade secrets or even the divulger gets off the hook. The submitted code need not be removed, and no royalties are due, because as soon as a trade secret becomes public knowledge it has no legal protection. If a disgruntled Coca-Cola employee released their trade secret formula onto rec.cooking, the whole world could start using it immediately and owe nothing to Coke.

    7. Re:Open Source by SoTuA · · Score: 1

      Well, that someone would have to prove it in a court of law. I can't go to jail for saying that I murdered x, y or z if there's no corpse of x,y or z to be found, or proof that I did. Of course, IANAL, though I'm marrying one soon :)

    8. Re:Open Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, Microsoft is smarter then that. They rip off NetBSD code.

    9. Re:Open Source by titzandkunt · · Score: 1


      In that case...

      ...the guys in black robes (judges) and the thin-watch brigade (lawyers) get involved, and you might as well start flipping coins.

      T&K.

      --
      Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable...
    10. Re:Open Source by aphr0Scorp · · Score: 1

      YOU'RE A FAGGOT!@!! Actually, I made that up. You're a queermo. But had I not told you that, could you prove otherwise by removing your manbeef from my pulsating boyass?

  37. Caught My Attention by antiMStroll · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Says Linus:

    The one thing SCO has mentioned has been the Read Copy Update code that IBM gave us, and that wasn't accepted for the longest time into the kernel exactly because we knew the patents were owned by IBM. [But] we said we couldn't take it until you [IBM] said very explicitly that you also license the patents.

    Does this mean there is patented code in the Linux kernel? How does that not conflict with the GPL?

    1. Re:Caught My Attention by penisburd · · Score: 4, Informative

      Patents can be used in GPL code, AFAIK, as long as the owner of said patent allows it. Of course, it is always good to be cautious here because if IBM decided to yank the license for their patent, a lot of people are affected, so they have to get strict licensing terms that prevents that from happeneing.

    2. Re:Caught My Attention by rossifer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because the GPL specifically discusses patent licensing. In section 7, it states that if you can't get a royalty free license to the relevant patents then the GPL can't be applied.

      Which is meant to imply that (in this case) if IBM is willing to license the relevant patents to GPL licencees without royalty then it can hold those patents (and charge others for the use of them for non-GPL'd applications) and GPL code based on those patents. Which IBM is doing.

      Regards,
      Ross

    3. Re:Caught My Attention by Azog · · Score: 3, Informative

      Like it says... the patents are licensed. Read the GPL, it is not incompatible with patents. It just says they have to be licensed so that they won't be a problem for people using the code.

      So IBM wrote a license for their RCU patents which says (briefly) that anyone can use it in GPL'ed code.

      And there you go - no conflict.

      Of course IBM can still sue people who use the RCU stuff in NON-GPL'ed code, unless those people get a separate license to do so.

      --
      Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
      "HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
    4. Re:Caught My Attention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think IBM patented it in 1983 or so. That would mean the patent expired in 2000, so anyone could use the ideas covered by it.

    5. Re:Caught My Attention by steveha · · Score: 4, Informative

      [IBM] can hold those patents (and charge others for the use of them for non-GPL'd applications) and GPL code based on those patents.

      Yes, exactly correct. This is why Linux has RCU and BSD doesn't. IBM is willing to license the patents for free for GPL code, but they still want to charge license fees for use in proprietary code.

      Releasing something under BSD is effectively placing it in the public domain.

      By the way, you sometimes see people claiming that "if there weren't any copyrights there would be no need for GPL" or some such. Not so. GPL uses copyright law to prevent people from taking free projects proprietary; BSD lets you do anything you want, including taking a free project, hacking it up slightly, and releasing it as a proprietary product.

      steveha

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    6. Re:Caught My Attention by xyote · · Score: 1
      >> This is why Linux has RCU and BSD doesn't.

      Well, BSD can have RCU too if they base it on the expired patent I mentioned in my other post.

    7. Re:Caught My Attention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The theory is, that without copyright, there would be no proprietary product.

      Just ask MS (or the RIAA) if they would go out of business, if their products could legally be copied for free.

    8. Re:Caught My Attention by spitzak · · Score: 1
      There might be a "need" for the GPL if there were no copyrights, but the GPL as written would be meaningless if there were no copyrights.

      Without copyrights everything would be in the public domain. Despite what Microsoft feverishly wants people to believe, the GPL is not a signed contract and in no way can it cause you to give up any rights you already have. If there was no copyright laws you would have the right to copy anything, and you could therefore copy the GPL code any way you want.

    9. Re:Caught My Attention by JoeBuck · · Score: 1

      IBM has also licensed some patents covering register allocation so that GCC can use the techniques.

      Raph Levien, who currently maintains Ghostscript, has also licensed a number of patents dealing with printing for use in GPLed code.

  38. Re:Torvald's isn't a lawyer by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 1

    Either you're a troll or you have no idea what's going on. Read the article.

  39. Outcomes of the SCO trial by Bio-Hazzard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The worst case senario (which I think is EXTREMELY unlikely) is that the courts find SCO right on all points, this means linux will become a "dark" OS, you'll have to find obscure sites and download the latest kernel before it gets locked down.
    More likely is that SCO gets chucked out on it's arse for having such lame evidence (last I heard it was 80 lines that were copied word 4 word) and linux comes out fine.
    But my biggest worry is that whatever the outcome whenever a big campany is looking to migrate, the issue of the "stolen" code will come out.
    Some conversation like this will happen.

    IT guy: We should switch to linux it's cheaper, faster and more stable.
    Manager: But what about the stolen code?
    (conversation on how it wasn't stolen etc.)

    The biggest problem is our reputation will be tainted and that's whats bugging me.

    --

    Give a man a fire, he is warm for a day.
    Set a man on fire, he is warm for the rest of his life.

    1. Re:Outcomes of the SCO trial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The lawsuit is about trade secrets. Once they're public, they aren't protected anymore. As long as IBM owns the copyright for the donated code, they can distribute the code. But IBM could possibly be liable for violating their contract if SCO can somehow convince a court that the code they donated is a Unix derivative and their contract doesn't allow that.

    2. Re:Outcomes of the SCO trial by isorox · · Score: 4, Interesting

      you'll have to find obscure sites and download the latest kernel before it gets locked down.

      What? /usr/src? 6 versions of the 2.4 kernel on 3 different boxes, not to mention tons of CD's I've collected over the years. But yes, you are right about reputation.

      I thought that linux would simply have the offending code removed - the rest of the code is GPL's and I could release "isoroxix" tomorrow with the same non-sco code. Linux wont go away, and even if it did there's always HURD :D. Moving in on the desktop might take a little longer though.

    3. Re:Outcomes of the SCO trial by dacarr · · Score: 1
      (last I heard it was 80 lines that were copied word 4 word)

      What, the stuff between the comment tags?

      --
      This sig no verb.
    4. Re:Outcomes of the SCO trial by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      This is not flamebait! I want to know where HURD stands now. I mean, when I go to the website, it all looks rosy, but then I don't know yet if they've conquered the 1 GB barrier or what else is left to happen. Anyone have a reasonable system up and running on it?

    5. Re:Outcomes of the SCO trial by isorox · · Score: 1

      The latest and greatest 386 with a 320MB SCSI is now up and running!

  40. Re:Torvald's isn't a lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL, a 600K+ user calls someone out for being a troll. Good one.

  41. Re:Linus regard for customers by Trolling4Dollars · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Profit motive is the worst and most inefficient way to develop any complex system. What's required is a true interest in what you do. Why do you think so many of those paper MCSEs were completely worthless? They did it because they wanted the money and didn't care about the technology. That's never going to get anyone anywhere. You do it because you love it, otherwise you find something else to do otherwise you'll always be second rate.

  42. Sure ... by SuperDuG · · Score: 0, Troll
    Torvalds, says he was extra careful with issues like the IBM Read Copy Update code

    careful enough to STEAL SCO's code!!!

    --
    Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
    1. Re:Sure ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SCO has never claimed that IBM stole their code. Their lawsuit claims IBM has misappropriated trade secrets by distributing code that is a SysV derivative.

      Their claims are highly questionable since the donated JFS code, for example, came from OS/2 and not from SysV or AIX.

    2. Re:Sure ... by SuperDuG · · Score: 1

      Damn, that comment was meant to be a joke. Wow.

      --
      Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
    3. Re:Sure ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it wasn't funny. You see jokes have to be FUNNY to get modded up.

  43. Re:Torvald's isn't a lawyer by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 0, Redundant

    LOL, someone talks shit as an AC. Good one.

  44. Re:Torvald's isn't a lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone posting with a troll ID talks shit about an AC. Good one!

  45. Re:Linus regard for customers by quakeroatz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are you so naive that you actually think successful "mass market" companies "like" the consumer?

    NEWS FLASH!
    They don't give a F$#K either!

    As long as you're still grabbing the latest and greatest, slightly modified w/ new icons version, they're happy.

    They don't need to like you to succeed; they just need to have you by the balls. When was the last time someone who "liked" you asked for money, every year, to continue seeing them?

  46. You fail it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, you missed it. The mozilla thread is further down the page. This is the place for a Linux- or even a *nix-is-dying post.

  47. Re:Linus regard for customers by manvantaradude · · Score: 4, Informative
    In nutshell, this comment shows perfectly why Linux will never succeed in the mass market

    Wrong. Linus works on the Linux kernel. The people that package various distributions worry about the customers they attempt to serve. Most folks that enjoy using Linux would laugh with Linus on this one.

  48. FUD by phriedom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "...or force Linux users to pay damages as well, depending on the wording of the licensing agreements in the distros being used."

    Linux users are not party to the contract between IBM and SCO, so nothing in that contract can compell Linux users to do anything.

    The most the courts can do to Linux is force them to remove code IF (and I just can't see how it could, but if) SCO does in fact own the rights to code submitted to Linux by IBM. Linux will live on no matter what and SCO can't touch users or developers.

    --
    Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
    1. Re:FUD by geekee · · Score: 1

      "Linux users are not party to the contract between IBM and SCO, so nothing in that contract can compell Linux users to do anything."

      If Linux uses code that IBM had no right to give them, and if Linux distributors waived all their responsibility for Linux code onto the user, then users may be held responsible for damages if code they are running is actually owned by SCO. Saying that SCO can't touch users is naive.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    2. Re:FUD by phriedom · · Score: 1

      That is crap.

      IBM is the only one responsible for IBM's actions. IBM is the only one with a contract with SCO. No one can "waive" responsibility onto Linux users.

      --
      Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
  49. Re:Linus regard for customers by the+gnat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is built by developers...for developers.

    I think that's rather unfair, but actually, this is *exactly* why I use Linux. Microsoft has always seemed to follow the philosophy of "Shut up, we know what's good for you", which is fine for most users but drives me up the fucking wall. I spent months learning to use Linux, but I can now finally set my computer up exactly the way I want it which I never could with Windows.

    This is the main reason I like the open-source movement, not the philosophy or supposed superiority of the code.

  50. "Insightful"? by Jad+LaFields · · Score: 1

    Uh... I was joking you realize... there is no "forestfall" property in any Linux kernal. Nor should there be, the lack of tree-group-related noise is one of the big advantages Linux has over Windows.

    Yes folks, I will be here all week. No need to throw those tomatoes, I'm not hungry.
    Man am I on a roll. A roll with sesam--ouch! Alright, alright!

    --
    [SIG] It's like putting a moose in the blender -- a recipe for disaster!
  51. darn it by mikeee · · Score: 1

    I've been waiting for my UUCP configuration mojo to come back into fashion; looks like no luck yet.

  52. Re:WTF by Bio-Hazzard · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Linus Torvalds is the founder of the linux, either you are extremely ignorant or you tried to be funny and failed miserably.

    --

    Give a man a fire, he is warm for a day.
    Set a man on fire, he is warm for the rest of his life.

  53. I haven't done more than peek at the kernel source by Lord+Kano · · Score: 0

    but what gets me about SCO's claim is that they say that even the comments in the source are the same as in their IP.

    Well, that makes sense. If the code is designed to handle a common, or inevitable problem then the comments would be the same.

    IE

    main (){ //This is the start of the program

    Has anyone else thought of this?

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  54. Re:WTF by NoRemorse · · Score: 1

    huston we have a n00b

  55. Re:Torvald's isn't a lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL! Someone posting as an AC talks shit about someone posting with a Troll-ID who talks shit about somone talking shit as an AC. Good One!

  56. Re:Torvald's isn't a lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL! Someone posting as an AC talks shit about someone posting as an AC talking shit about someone posting with a "Troll-ID" who talks shit about someone talking shit as an AC! Good ONE!

    Hey, thanks for being a friend. Welcome to my friends list. Check your Fans list.

  57. nice put-down by solferino · · Score: 4, Funny

    Linus :

    In the end, SCO is not a very surprising [company to bring a lawsuit]. Their business was zero and it was shrinking.

    Curious mathematical idea, but lovely rhetoric.

    1. Re:nice put-down by MrRage · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well maybe he means that there business was in an epsilon-neighborhood of 0.

    2. Re:nice put-down by Penguinshit · · Score: 1

      Hey.. -5 is still an integer...

    3. Re:nice put-down by thimo · · Score: 1

      Brought to you by the man who does infinite loops in 5 seconds...

      Thimo
      --

      --
      Avoid the Gates of Hell. Use Linux!
    4. Re:nice put-down by stephenbooth · · Score: 1

      Maybe he meant that the real component of their business is zero but it has an imaginary component that is non-zero, sco_business=m+ni sort of thing. m is zero however modulus(sco_business)=n and arg(sco_business)=tan^-1(n/0) (i.e. tan^-1(infinity), 1.5707 radians) --- if I'm remebering my complex math correctly that is, it's been about 12 years since I last had to use it.

      In other words, any business SCO has is purely imaginary and that they are, perpendicularly, out of phase to reality.

      Stephen

      --
      "Don't write down to your readers, the only people less intelligent than you can't read" - Sign on Newspaper Office Wall
    5. Re:nice put-down by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Rather than shrink, he probably should have said 'fall.' Unless, of course, he's intimating that SCO will turn into a kind of black hole...

      If "business" is defined as revenue - costs, and you have costs with current customers (such as, say, support contracts, maintenance contracts, professional services commitments, etc etc) and you're not bringing in new customers, or bringing in new profit, then at some point, your business will hit 0; the break even point, and if your costs continue at present rate, or even increase, while your profits shink, or continue present rate, then your business continues to fall.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  58. Joe Sixpack by B1ackDragon · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure if I like this term "Joe Sixpack." I would probably consider myself a person of this description, judging from most contexts in which it is used - except my name isn't Joe. Also, when I drink I hardly ever finish off a whole sixpack before I get depressed and go to sleep. Sheesh.

    --
    The snow doesn't give a soft white damn whom it touches. -- ee cummings
  59. Funny? by syberanarchy · · Score: 0

    Shit, mod parent insightful. ;)

  60. Re:Linus regard for customers by syberanarchy · · Score: 0

    When was the last time someone who "liked" you asked for money, every year, to continue seeing them? My girlfriend.

  61. Not ignorance of the law. by mindstrm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That is not ignorance of the law, that is ignorance of the fact.

    Not knowing that something is illegal is not an excuse.
    Not knowing you DID something in the first place is a totally different matter.

    Linus is not ignorant of the law, he knows taking someone elses stuff and putting it in his kernel without permission is illegal. The point is that, if you have no reason to suspect you don't have the rights, that should be the end of it as far as you are concerned, until someone points out otherwise.
    To do things the other way would be incredibly expensive, and endless... how do you prove code is totally within your rights? Full patent search and public annoncement on each function and update?

    1. Re:Not ignorance of the law. by XO · · Score: 1

      OK.. slight correction to what I said.. thanks :)

      though i think most did get the idea.. :p

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    2. Re:Not ignorance of the law. by JoeBuck · · Score: 1

      In the case of patent law, not knowing means that damages are 1/3 of what they are if you know (if you know you are infringing a patent, damages triple). So yes, it is better not to go out actively looking for patents that you might be infringing except in special cases.

  62. Re:Linus regard for customers by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

    Microsoft are successful.

    Do they treat us in a fashion that leads you to think they like us?

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  63. Was there any doubt by NedTheNerd · · Score: 1
    i mean really anyone who is a little more informed than the average congresman can tell you that linux is the engine for an operating system nothing more linux is a gerneal term thrown around to mean an operating system that runs on the linux kernel its like calling a car with a Fuji engine biult by for a Fuji and all cars that ford makes Fujis it really is unfortunate that people arent more informed about this type of stuff oh well no matter

    btw if you wana learn about torvolds read

    Just for Fun: The Story of an Accidental Revolutionary

  64. Read the Contracts, Luke by Royster · · Score: 1

    I don't see any way SCO can have a claim unless the RCU code that IBM donated contained SysV code or code derived from SysV. I seriously doubt IBM would be stupid enough to do that.

    IBM's contract with AT&T allows IBM to create derivative works but it also requires that IBM treat these derivative works the same way that they treat the Unix base code.

    In this way it's similar to the GPL. If IBM had released a Linux kernel with RCU features, people would be clamoring for the RCU code to be released under the GPL.

    Similarly, SCO is claiming that RCU is a derived work of Sys V and demanding that the derived work be kept secret as the Sys V codebase was.

    Ironically, a ruling which finds RCU to not be a derived work of Sys V helps IBM but weakens the GPL by narrowing what must be considered a derived work. A ruling which holds RCU to be a derived work of Sys V hurts IBM, but helps the GPL by setting an expansive definition of what constitutes a derived work.

    But even if IBM loses to SCO, it probably has no implications for Linux unless they can get a ruling that SCO rightfully owns the copyright to RCU which seems incredibly unlikely.

    --
    I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
    1. Re:Read the Contracts, Luke by yaphadam097 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Ironically, a ruling which finds RCU to not be a derived work of Sys V helps IBM but weakens the GPL by narrowing what must be considered a derived work. A ruling which holds RCU to be a derived work of Sys V hurts IBM, but helps the GPL by setting an expansive definition of what constitutes a derived work.

      I don't think that a more expansive definition of derivitive works "helps" the GPL. If anything, it contributes to the perception that GPL has a "viral nature" as claimed by Microsoft. If I am a company with commercial interests and I also want to make use of GPL software, I want to be very clear about what constitutes a derivative work so that my commercial interests are not affected. If something that I do using GPL software is not currently considered a derivative work, and then suddenly someone like SCO comes along, wins a suit, and expands the definition of a derivative work to include the type of work I am doing, then my commercial interests can be severely impacted. That is why SCO CANNOT win this case if we ever want to see widespread use of GPL software by the business community.

    2. Re:Read the Contracts, Luke by Royster · · Score: 1

      I thought that my example of someone including a feature in a binary kernel and distributing that kernel was sufficiently clear of grey areas. I don't think that anyone disputes that if you distribute a binary kernel which has been modified, you must release the source since the binary kernel is a derivative work of the unmodified kernel. The GPL says you can only do this if you release the source. The SCO license says that IBM can only do that (release a derivative work of the Sys V kernel) if they keep the code secret.

      Since this is a pretty cut and dried example which dosn't get into some of the grey areas about what is a derivative work, It seems clear that any finding that RCU (or an AIX kernel containing RCU) was not a derivative work would be highly damaging to the GPL.

      Based on our own interpretation of the GPL, SCO has a case here. But any rulings which clarify what consitutes a derivative work are going to be good for uses of GPLed works.

      --
      I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
  65. Re:I haven't done more than peek at the kernel sou by lspd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The only thing that shows up being even close between the Linux kernel and the versions of Unix with source available is what seems to be a derivative of malloc and mfree in ate_utils.c

    ate_utils is/was part of the NUMA code for IA64. It has been removed from the latest development and prepatch kernels (it's obsolete, from what I've read.)

    There are some less interesting similarities between the signal handling code, but that's hardly remarkable. How many ways can you write a switch statement?

    The key thing to remember though is that SCO doesn't actually claim they wrote the code. They claim to own rights in code that IBM wrote. I would bet that it's safe to assume that a detailed inspection of AIX and Linux 2.4.21 will reveal similarities. The question is, does IBM have the right to relicense code they created?

  66. Re:Linus regard for customers by Zebbers · · Score: 4, Funny

    When was the last time someone who "liked" you asked for money, every year, to continue seeing them?

    I knew something was wrong when my girlfriend asked if I could do direct deposit. :(

  67. Re:Linux IP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't want people to "steal" your ip stack don't release it under a peice of shit license like BSD you working-for-Apple-Corporation-for-free bum.

  68. Parsing the title... by henriksh · · Score: 1

    Ok, so is all Linux networking now done as VoIP? Anyone?

    1. Re:Parsing the title... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, it's obviously talking about the new IPoV technology. Sorta like rfc1149, but louder.

  69. Whew!! by stubear · · Score: 1

    I'm glad that Linus Torvalds, esq. cleared that whole issue up. What's that you say? Linus is not a lawyer? You mean his comments are really no more insightful as the rest of the armchair lawyers on /.? I gotta run. I have to cancel the lawsuit I planned after reading all those comments on /.

    1. Re:Whew!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And you are... who exactly? stubear? Riiiiiight.


      Let's discredit any news from someone who actually made a mark in the world by a guy named stubear that thinks he's slick by dripping sarcasm. Are you supposed to be any more insightful than him?

  70. Re:Linus regard for customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've never been around us. We hold customers in disdain.

    And I've never known anybody in this business who succeeded by having a different attitude. More work perhaps, but less money. And they burn out after a couple of years.

    Our customers seem to love us. They call, we fix, we send bill. The equipment works, they don't see us for a long time. When they call, it is a real problem with real money to be made. The customers don't have a clue what they need, how things work. Their opinions are meaningless. All we need to know is what their needs are and how much they want to spend.

    Sounds like Linus has the right attitude. I use his stuff because it works.

    Derek (who is a refrigeration mechanic)

  71. Re:Why did he wait so long? by El · · Score: 1

    Actually, he said "If I did kill Nicole, it would have been because I loved her so much."

    --

    "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

  72. Re:Linus regard for customers by El · · Score: 1

    At least Linux is customer neutral. I get the distinct impression that there are a huge number of marketing droids up in Redmond that are laughing at me behind my back!

    --

    "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

  73. What invention? Discovery! by axxackall · · Score: 1, Insightful
    If I invent an algorithm and patent it, the algorithm is protected by the patent monopoly, and anybody who wants to implement that patent has to pay me royalties. If I then implement my algorithm, the implementation is covered by copyright monopoly. The algorithm is not a trade secret, because it is published. The code to implement the algorithm, no matter how trivial, is the trade secret.

    Wrong. You don't invent an algorithm - you discover it. Algorithm has been exisiting forever as a part of the math. So, if you patent it then you just participate in a very wrong patent system of USA. If you want to protect your investment to that research you've made then you should implement it and then protect the code. When you implement the code - you invent it. Sort of. If you close your invented sources than it's a trade secret. Make sure to obfuscate it as much as even you stop uderstanding it - otherwise it will be reverse engineered. If you ope your invented source then you can copyright them.

    But whatever you do the only way to protect your research investments is to keep researching and developing. In software industry every algorithm has an idea. If you got an idea - you don't need any freeking algorithm since you can re-implement it in no time. Examples: gzip vs zip, png vs gif, pgp vs rsa etc and so on. So, the real artifact of your invention is a combination of the source code *AND* the environment you've created to compile it, debug, test, and package. Again, the only way to proect investments to such combination is to keep being faster than your competitors.

    --

    Less is more !
    1. Re:What invention? Discovery! by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      Wrong. You don't invent an algorithm - you discover it. Algorithm has been exisiting forever as a part of the math. So, if you patent it then you just participate in a very wrong patent system of USA.

      You've just changed the context of the discussion. I was not making a moral statement on the patent system. I was discussing the law as it stands. I don't have a real problem with your ideals, but it's not reality yet, and therefore have little bearing on this discussion.

      I repeat: the patent protects your algorithm. The actual implementation can be trade secret, even if the algorithm is published.

    2. Re:What invention? Discovery! by MarkusQ · · Score: 1

      I don't have a real problem with your ideals, but it's not reality yet, and therefore have little bearing on this discussion.

      What do you mean, yet? What he was describing has been the state of affairs for the bulk of the history of patents. Only in the last few years has the nonsense of issuing patents on mathematics been given any credence whatsoever. For that matter, I'm not convinced that "the law as it stands" really supports the modern practice of issuing patents on algorithms.

      -- MarkusQ

    3. Re:What invention? Discovery! by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      What do you mean, yet? What he was describing has been the state of affairs for the bulk of the history of patents.

      ...and thus we stray further off topic. Within the context of the original discussion, feel free to remove the "yet", and the point still stands. The rest of this post shall no longer belabor this point.

      Historically, a patent is a legal device to let the government protect and encourage the inventor or discoverer from copycats. It is particularly necessary as we entered the industrial age, where any useful widget you can invent can probably be easily copied and mass produced by an immoral competitor.

      We are now in the information age, which is characterized by a historically unprecedented ready conversion of knowledge into money. It is even easier today to copy an idea to compete with someone. Somebody who throws enough money at the problem can easily put up a viable competitor to Amazon.com, or to the iTunes Music Store. (Which is not to say either business idea should be patentable, just that any idea in this realm is basically easy to copy.)

      The question is what ideas are worth protecting with a monopoly. I think few will argue that the discoverers (assuming you also don't like to use "invent" for algorithms) of certain algorithms deserve compensation. MP3 encoding, for example, enabled vast new applications, and may one day be credited with changing the entire business of music. How do we compensate them? One way is to require anybody who uses their algorithm to pay them. A patent.

      This is not to say that there aren't problems. For the most part, technology patents last too long. They are also indiscriminately issued, poorly written, and all in all more useful to the legal profession than to the technical profession. However, that suggests reform, not anarchy. I think it is a very real danger that without patent protection, many useful discoveries will simply be buried deep within the biggest companies.

    4. Re:What invention? Discovery! by MarkusQ · · Score: 1

      Historically, a patent is a legal device to let the government protect and encourage the inventor or discoverer from copycats. It is particularly necessary as we entered the industrial age, where any useful widget you can invent can probably be easily copied and mass produced by an immoral competitor.

      The salient distinction between humans and other animals is the extent to which we learn from others, primarily by copying examples of successful behaviour. In order to assure that this copying can continue after the death of the inventor of a complex device many societies have entered into a bargin with the inventors: if you tell us everything we need to know in order to copy your invention we will refrain from doing so for a limited time. This is the origin of patents. Protecting the inventor is not the purpose, it's the bribe society offers to get what it wants. This deal is offered to inventors whose work is:

      • Original There's no point in society paying a premium for something that it already has.
      • Non-obvious Likewise, there's no point in buying something that you would have gotten anyway
      • Fully disclosed Remember, the goal is to enable eventual copying.
      • Demonstrated by a working example We aren't willing to pay for something that doesn't work.
      These restrictions are put in place because the price we pay is so high--nothing less than collectively giving up a portion of that which makes us human.

      I think few will argue that the discoverers (assuming you also don't like to use "invent" for algorithms) of certain algorithms deserve compensation.

      Then you should get out more. Many people do argue just that, and claim that algorithms should not be protected by patents.

      I think it is a very real danger that without patent protection, many useful discoveries will simply be buried deep within the biggest companies.

      That's just nuts. Most of these "inventions" are so obvious that the main aplication of patents these days isn't to stop people who learned how to do it by reading the patent, but to chill inovation by bludeoning anyone who "invents" something similar.

      -- MarkusQ

    5. Re:What invention? Discovery! by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      Many people do argue just that, and claim that algorithms should not be protected by patents.

      Perhaps I phrased it poorly. What I'm really saying is that you can probably find an algorithm so complex and useful that few will argue deserves the patent monopoly.

      Take MP3 encoding, for example. It's obviously worth money to you, because for the same $100 hard disk you can store 10x more music. It was worth money to the researchers, because they were paid salaries. Without patents, however, they have no way of converting their work into money except by keeping it a secret.

      Most of these "inventions" are so obvious

      You don't seem to have read my post at all before responding. I'm not talking about the silly patents. I'm talking about the useful and non-obvious ones.

      Just so it's perfectly clear to you, I'll reiterate. The US patent system is broken: it awards too many obvious, overly broad, and utterly unreadable patents for far too long a duration. However, to discard the patent system altogether will result in researchers hiding their work. Algorithms will simply revert to trade secrets. Fix the system, but don't toss the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

    6. Re:What invention? Discovery! by MarkusQ · · Score: 1

      Take MP3 encoding, for example. It's obviously worth money to you...You don't seem to have read my post at all before responding...Just so it's perfectly clear to you, I'll reiterate.

      Just so it's perfectly clear to you, I have read your posts but I disagree with you . Although it is obvious to you that MP3 encoding is worth money to me (though I have no idea why that should be obvious or on what basis you claim to know what I value and what I don't), it is not obvious to me that having someone implement one of the many possible audio compression schemes should be worth compromising what is to me a fundumental principle:

      No one owns mathematics: no one owns algebra, no one owns logic, no one owns algorithms, no one owns group theory, no one owns liniar algebra, ...
      The patentability of algorithms is a recent notion that has been snuck into the patent laws by people who want to make a buck by playing on the greed and ignorance of the public. It sets a dangerous precedent and I object to it on principle. The primary consequence is not (as you imply) that people now disclose their mathematical discoveries when previously did not, but rather that whoever discovers a fact first gets to decide who can use the fact and who can not.

      Yes, it would be handy for me if people who thought up clever algorithms told me about them. No, I am not willing to give up even a small part of my right to do mathematics in order to induce them to do so, nor conceed to them the roll of "gatekeeper" over even a small corner of Absolute Truth.

      -- MarkusQ

    7. Re:What invention? Discovery! by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      Although it is obvious to you that MP3 encoding is worth money to me (though I have no idea why that should be obvious or on what basis you claim to know what I value and what I don't)

      By "worth money", I don't mean that you the individual pay to use the algorithm. I mean that the disk space all of us will save is directly worth money. Indirectly, the algorithm enables the practical transmission of music, and may be worth money. It certainly was worth money to Napster, and worth (negative) money to various recording labels.

      The patentability of algorithms is a recent notion that has been snuck into the patent laws by people who want to make a buck by playing on the greed and ignorance of the public

      I disagree. The patentability of algorithms, as a concept, is sound. It is material incentive to discover new algorithms, and in exchange for publication, the society grants a limited monopoly to exploit the discovery. The implementation, at least in the US, is of course deeply flawed.

      I am not willing to give up even a small part of my right to do mathematics in order to induce them to do so

      Well said, even though I disagree with the absolutist approach. Do you consider anything at all patentable, though?

    8. Re:What invention? Discovery! by MarkusQ · · Score: 1

      I disagree.

      Good. I think recognizing that we disagree is the key to this discussion.

      The patentability of algorithms, as a concept, is sound.

      I disagree, as previous stated.

      It is material incentive to discover new algorithms, and in exchange for publication, the society grants a limited monopoly to exploit the discovery.

      I agree that it is an incentive, but disagree that it is needed (by definition, a useful algorithm is worth discovering for its own sake--no additional incentive should be required). I would agree with your statement of the bargin society makes (though I might disagree that the monopoly is "limited" in most practical situations). But I don't think it is to society's advantage to make the bargin, and thus I oppose it.

      The implementation, at least in the US, is of course deeply flawed.

      Agreed.

      I am not willing to give up even a small part of my right to do mathematics in order to induce them to do so

      Well said, even though I disagree with the absolutist approach.

      *smile* An absolutist appoach is hard to avoid on matters of principle--at least, if your principles mean anything to you. I suppose you could make the argument that some amount of thought police was good, but I'd have a hard time swollowing it.

      Do you consider anything at all patentable, though?

      Good question. I think a small, poor society would be well advised to grant patents liberally, whereas I think a large, rich society should be much more parsimonious. In the former, the value of inventions is high and the chance of losing them great, whereas in the later the incremental value is small and the chance that any one invention will be made many times is high.

      I suppose I would like consider things patentable only if they were very valuable and very "non-obvious"; perhaps (if I were asked to redesign the patent system) I would recommend granting a small number of patents (say, a dozen or fewer a year) on devices of proven value in cases where it appeared that there was a real risk that the invention would be lost forever if not disclosed.

      Too many incentives leads to madness; a state to which which we as a society are far closer than most of us care to admit.

      -- MarkusQ

      P.S. Or, to be contrarian, for the next hundred years or so I would be willing to grant patents to any device which was developed in geosyncronous orbit (or higher) covering use anywhere nearer the surface of the earth than the point of development.

    9. Re:What invention? Discovery! by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      I don't think it is to society's advantage to make the bargin, and thus I oppose it.

      I think I understand what the problem is now. By "the concept is sound", I mean that it can be to a society's advantage, depending on various details such as how long the patent is effective. By objecting to it, what you mean appears to be that given this set of circumstances, you don't think it's helpful.

      I think a small, poor society would be well advised to grant patents liberally, whereas I think a large, rich society should be much more parsimonious.

      Just to nitpick, then it doesn't appear to be a matter of principle, but relative weighing of costs and benefits.

      I would recommend granting a small number of patents (say, a dozen or fewer a year) on devices of proven value in cases where it appeared that there was a real risk that the invention would be lost forever if not disclosed.

      I'd lower the bar a bit, perhaps to the point where endless reinvention hampers society's progress. IOW, an equilibrium where firstcomers are amply rewarded, and followers are spared the pain of reinvention. That indeed calls for a lot fewer patents, but also those that must be readable by engineers rather than lawyers.

      In any case, I don't think there's a major disagreement here.

    10. Re:What invention? Discovery! by MarkusQ · · Score: 1

      There were two topics going, and you confounded them.

      On the topic of patenting mathematics, in any form, I wrote:

      I don't think it is to society's advantage to make the bargin, and thus I oppose it.
      To which you replied:
      I think I understand what the problem is now. By "the concept is sound", I mean that it can be to a society's advantage, depending on various details such as how long the patent is effective. By objecting to it, what you mean appears to be that given this set of circumstances, you don't think it's helpful.
      To reiterate, I find it hard to imagine a set of circumstances in which a society would be well advised to, even in part, give up the principle of freedom-of-thought to learn a few algorithms, any more than I think it would be a good idea to sell your vital organs to raise some quick cash.

      On the topic of patents in general I wrote:

      I think a small, poor society would be well advised to grant patents liberally, whereas I think a large, rich society should be much more parsimonious.
      To which you replied:
      Just to nitpick, then it doesn't appear to be a matter of principle, but relative weighing of costs and benefits.
      The principled rejection was of patenting discoveries in natural law, mathematics, etc. The pragmatic reasoning was regarding patents of normal inventions, which I agree may be worthwhile but ought to be sharply curtailed from today's orgy of artificial-monopolys-as-indulgences.

      -- MarkusQ

  74. Re:Torvald's isn't a lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm the chairman of the board and you're fired.

  75. Damnit Linus! by Spackler · · Score: 2, Troll

    How many times does RMS have to tell you. IT'S GNU/linux.

    1. Re:Damnit Linus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually in this case it would be Linux: the Linux _kernel_, not the GNU/Linux _operating system_.

    2. Re:Damnit Linus! by nathanh · · Score: 2, Informative
      How many times does RMS have to tell you. IT'S GNU/linux.

      No, SCO claims IBM copied code into the kernel, which is correctly termed Linux. RMS has clarified this already.

    3. Re:Damnit Linus! by Feztaa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How many times does RMS have to tell you. IT'S GNU/linux.

      Watch Revolution OS. Linus clearly states that the idea of taking Linux and calling it GNU/Linux is "ridiculous".

      Personally, I'm neutral on the subject. Yes, Stallman did a lot of work and deserves credit for GNU. On the other hand, 'linux' is simply the popular term used to describe a GNU system running the Linux kernel. Stallman wants to call it GNU/Linux, and Linus thinks is silly to waste time arguing about it. I sort of agree with both of them -- GNU/Linux is a good name, but convincing the entire world to stop calling it 'linux' is a waste of time.

      And BTW, the kernel is just 'Linux', no matter what. RMS only insists on GNU/Linux when you're talking about the whole system, not just the kernel.

    4. Re:Damnit Linus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GNU/Linux is the name of the whole system. Kernel alone is called simply GNU.

    5. Re:Damnit Linus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how Torvalds would feel about it being called Linux/GNU. I'm sure his ego has nothing to do with his decision... IANAWU (I am not a windows user)

    6. Re:Damnit Linus! by Phong · · Score: 1
      And BTW, the kernel is just 'Linux'

      Not so. It should be referred to as "the Linux kernel", to differentiate it from "Linux", the OS. Even if you're a hard-core GNU/Linux terminologist, the extra qualification ensures that people know what you're talking about.

      I personally will never call Linux (the OS) GNU/Linux because it was not the GNU folks that took their OS work and integrated the Linux kernel into GNU (not right away at least, since they were telling people to stop working on Linux and start working on Hurd) -- it was Linus and the folks helping him who took bits and pieces from all over, including GNU stuff, BSD stuff, etc., and combined it into an OS, naming it "Linux" in the process.

      Also (as I've said before) the term GNU/Linux is really only referring to a subset of all of Linuxdom. The GNU prefix has a meaning, and it means a hard-core "free software" belief that is not as tolerant of the use of closed-source code as the "open source" movement is. "Linux" encompasses both camps. GNU/Linux only represents one part of the whole.

      --
      ..wayne..
  76. Re:Shock; Surprise, duh by donutz · · Score: 1

    Errr... no. He probably went through the code with a fine toothed comb (or a decent pattern matching app) and found nothing infringing because there never was anything infringing to begin with.

    Ummm, probably not a pattern matching app...what other source code do you think he had access to? I'd wager none...

  77. Duh... by voxel · · Score: 0, Troll

    Of course he says the IP is sound... Do you really think even if he knew it wasn't sound, he would say "Well, I don't know for sure, it could be bad, Linux might be in big trouble".

    Another un-news worthy post from Slashdot. Congradulations, you win again.

    Troll me all you want! Bring it on..

    Troll: -75
    Quality News from Slashdot: -400

    --
    Modesty is one of life's greatest attributes
  78. IP is ImPrecise by quinkin · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Patent != Copyright != Trademark != Breach of Contract.

    Please, please, please can we avoid using the acronym IP? It is not at all a valid concept - these are all completely disparate areas of law and should never be referred to in the same breath without clarification.

    It is often used as a term that encompasses patents, trademarks and copyright - but if you ever hire an "IP lawyer"(sic) you will nearly invariably find that they only specialise in one or two of the above areas.

    Q.

    --
    Insert Signature Here
  79. Re:Linus regard for customers by transiit · · Score: 1

    I'm with you on this one. The more I've learned about it, the more it seems they generally got things right. It could've been the unix heritage that I'm admiring, but going off to another system (such as windows or mac), I'm consistently struck by how easy it is to get things wrong. OS X was a bit closer on the mark, but I've never found its unix-like layer to be that enjoyable. Many of my favorite tools aren't there (such as my text editor of choice, joe) and those that are seem like they were done wrong (there's a fair amount of wrangling involved with getting perl to behave. Pretty flimsy for a "well-integrated system", in my opinion). No matter, it's not really the point I'm trying to make here anyway.

    What I was getting at is that there's an amazing amount of stuff-that-feels-right when I get on a linux box, but I've become increasingly disenchanted with the way things have been going in the desktop-environment camp. Granted, I started off with afterstep (after a few false starts mucking about with twm), but I've never really enjoyed the "We know best" attitude. It's kept me off KDE to a large degree (it's a minor thing, but pet peeves are made from getting used to swallowing apps in the afterstep wharf and trying to transition to the kde panel (kicker?) which has always seemed wildly inflexible). Gnome wasn't so bad in the early days, but ever since Pennington wrote about the evils of preferences, I've become rather wary of it. Watching configurable items disappear, or get moved into places that are [highly recommended|otherwise inconvenient to avoid]. Gconfd and it's rather senseless approach to XML-izing the windows registry is a particular point of contention. Awful, it is.

    So I'm thinking I'm going to have to go off-mainstream from much of where the linux-on-the-desktop guys are headed. There are going to be occassions where it's more painful than others (keeping a few extra libraries around isn't so bad. Getting used to the loss of .*rc files is)

    I think I liked it better when I was talking about how Right things could be, rather than how much we've given up because of vocal tards that keep bitching about a fictional Aunt Tillie needing everything to be dumbed down.

    *sigh*
    -transiit

  80. Re:Linus regard for customers by nathanh · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I spent months learning to use Linux, but I can now finally set my computer up exactly the way I want it which I never could with Windows.

    This is the main reason I like the open-source movement, not the philosophy or supposed superiority of the code.

    Setting your computer up exactly the way you want *is* the philosophy. Read the GNU Manifesto. RMS started GNU precisely for the same reason you prefer Linux over Windows.

  81. Re:Torvald's isn't a lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'm your mom and you're grounded.

  82. Umm, no by CaptPungent · · Score: 0

    The problem with your analogy is, if you create a separate kernel module, or other portion of code, and you consequently release it as GPL, then you cannot revoke the GPL on that code. The releases that you put it in as GPL will forever be GPL. However, you later decide you no longer want it to be GPL, and you quit working on it, and make all further releases under some other license. Now, you are COMPLETELY WITHIN YOUR RIGHT to do this. You are the copyright holder, you wrote the code in question. You can take your code an adapt it and merge it into SomeProprietaryUnix's kernel, and release it under any license you wish. But the code you initially made GPL and had distributed as GPL, will always remain GPL. Someone else can then work on it.

    I really hate it when people don't understand copyright at all and make statements like this. As an artist, if I create a work such as a painting, and I then sell it to SomeRichCollector, I am in no way forbidden from painting another and giving it to my grandmother, or teaching some college students exactly how to recreate it. I can do whatever the hell I want with my art. Since source code also falls under copyright, the same applies to GPL source code. You are releasing it under a copyright that gives certain permissions for others to copy it. You are NOT giving away your copyright. You are simply making a release that carries no restrictions, and you cannot retract your release, same as I cannot later force SomeRichCollector to give me back my painting. I released it to him in that instance.

    But the point here is, you never give up your right to the code in question, it is your creation for the duration of the copywrite period, and you can license it however you wish and as many times as you wish, with the exceptions of fair use.

    This whole case is based upon a contract between IBM and SCO, where SCO claims that IBM, under contract to AT&T, agreed that any code they created and released with the SysV code be kept locked up. This is a derived work, and is somewhat fair, since it would be a Bad Thing for IBM to release their code with the SysV code under any other license. What isn't clear here is what a derived work is. I have no question that the RCU code as released with AIX falls under that contract, and must remain a 'secret'. However, what isn't clear is whether the code by itself is a derived work. Personally I don't feel that it should be, it is a component, a 'part of a whole', that when released in conjunction with AIX is a derived work since it is adding to the SysV code to create AIX, however if said code is reworked without using any portions of SysV, which would likely have been required in order to interact with the SysV kernel, as in to work with the Linux kernel, now it is 'pure' code that IBM has written, it has nothing to do with the SysV code. That is one issue that the courts will have to decide.

    I have made ever attempt to spell check this post. But it would be very nice if the slashcode were changed to GIVE ME A BIGGER BOX TO WRITE IN!!!

    --
    C Pungent
    1. Re:Umm, no by NoCrash · · Score: 1
      This whole case is based upon a contract between IBM and SCO, where SCO claims that IBM, under contract to AT&T, agreed that any code they created and released with the SysV code be kept locked up.
      There's a side-letter agreement to the original software license agreement (SCO's Exhibit C found at http://www.sco.com/ibmlawsuit) where AT&T agrees that portions of derivative works developed by IBM (or for IBM) are owned by IBM (see paragraph 2 of the letter). AT&T retained ownership of the original source. I think SCO loses the derivative works claims on the basis of the side-letter/contract agreement.
      --
      Living at the edge--of a continent?
    2. Re:Umm, no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always assumed everyone pasted comments in from a txt editor.

  83. Re:Linus regard for customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you tried the ROX Filer / Desktop? It does things a bit differently from most, but is pretty cool. There isn't too much configurability, but it is small enough (and stays out of your way enough) that that isn't really very much to configure anyway.

  84. question if I donate code by Dan9999 · · Score: 1

    hypothetically, if I wrote a commercial kernel, would I be allowed to donate code to linux?

    1. Re:question if I donate code by DHam · · Score: 1

      As a matter of copyright law, yes. If you wrote it working for yourself then, all other things being equal*, you own the copyright and you can license it to anyone you like on whatever terms you like. Obviously for it to be accepted and distributed as a part of the Linux kernel, you have to agree to license it to everyone under GPL 2 but, as the copyright owner, you can do that. The fact that you've licensed the code under the GPL doesn't prevent you from also licensing it to anyone you like under any other terms (for example a proprietary licence as a part of your own kernel).

      Of course there is also the matter of getting Linus to accept your code. As can be seen from the example of IBM, Linus has no problem with accepting kernel code from people who also develop other (even proprietary) kernels. The only thing that remains is the mere triviality of producing code useful enough and of a high enough quality that Linus would want it :-).

      *In other circumstances the copyright may belong to your employer or someone else whom you have contracted to give the copyright to. In that case it is they who could grant licences to it on whatever terms they like.

  85. Amen profits make money, not ideas. by ahfoo · · Score: 1

    When I read that quote about customers. I said, Halleluja this guy rocks.
    There are places and times where it's a good thing to reach out to people for whatever reason and try to cajole them into various actions. Marriage wouldn't go far without a good customer service attitude on the parts of both partners, but there are limits for christ's sake. Just like mantra "let the markets decide" customer focus becomes a slavish dogma and it so damned refreshing to hear someone who has billions of customers say fuck em'.
    Amen brother. Tell it to the people!

  86. Re:Linus regard for customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you think the team currently maintaining the task switcher, memory manager, and device drivers for Windows cares much about users?

    No. They care about the things they are working on. They care about giving developers a framework for their device drivers and applications. Right?

    Hell, I bet a lot of the people working on Windows don't care at all. They're doing what they do because they're getting paid. At least with Linux, you are gauranteed to get a kernel hacker's sweat and blood, because he's writing that code because he needs it himself.

  87. Re:Torvald's isn't a lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  88. Re:Linus regard for customers by transiit · · Score: 1

    Seen it, haven't gotten around to trying it.

    I've been on an XFCE kick for a while, although I'm a bit nervous about the upcoming (days?) version 4. We'll see (and to be fair, I've not been watching too closely. Things could be fine.)

    There seems to be a definite disconnect, though. You can have modern luxuries like anti-aliased fonts, or you can have the "bad old days of editing rc files by hands." (which I remember as the good old days. Spend a bit of time getting it set up right at first, be happy and feel productive.)

    -transiit

  89. Re:Torvald's isn't a lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YHBT
    HTH
    HAND!

  90. Re:Linus regard for customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    OS X was a bit closer on the mark, but I've never found its unix-like layer to be that enjoyable. Many of my favorite tools aren't there (...) and those that are seem like they were done wrong
    I have been waiting a long time for someone on Slashdot to recognize this. :-) I get so tired of everybody parroting away about how OS X is a wonderful Unix.
    What I was getting at is that there's an amazing amount of stuff-that-feels-right when I get on a linux box, but I've become increasingly disenchanted with the way things have been going in the desktop-environment camp.
    Yes! I absolutely agree here.
    Gconfd and it's rather senseless approach to XML-izing the windows registry is a particular point of contention. Awful, it is.
    Mac OS X senselessly XML-izes too. For some of the Cocoa stuff, I prefer the way GNUstep stores its settings. (Like objC declarations, almost.) I'm not sure how the original NeXT did it. Otherwise, Mac OS X has some needless XML frontends to things like /etc/passwd.
    So I'm thinking I'm going to have to go off-mainstream from much of where the linux-on-the-desktop guys are headed.
    A good choice. What distro do you currently use? Stay away from Red Hat and all the crazy commercial stuff, obviously. I use personally use Debian, FVWM, and xterm to do everything. Then there is the occasional GTK+ app like mozilla or gaim.

    Debian is great, because it has all the GNOME and KDE libraries for all the GNOME and KDE apps you want to use in the repository, and apt-get will figure out all that mess of crazy libraries. The base system doesn't even have a desktop; apt-get everything you need and you're good to go.
  91. Re:Linus regard for customers by natmsincome.com · · Score: 1

    Linus - "Help I'm in a nutshell" ... or was that someone else?

  92. SFU (offtopic) by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1
    Stormtroopers (SFU)

    Am I the only one who reads this as StFU every time I see it in print?

    1. Re:SFU (offtopic) by Nucleon500 · · Score: 1

      No, I do too. BTW, am I the only one who got two SFU CDs wrapped with the August Linux Magazine? I was surprised a few months ago when Microsoft first started advertising there, but SFU CDs? They make great coasters, anyway.

    2. Re:SFU (offtopic) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I the only one who thinks you're a FAGGOT! every time I see you on slashdot?

      I don't think so.

  93. Businness friendly by xixax · · Score: 2, Insightful
    And therefore illustrates how GPL is more useful to businness than BSD, which lets people take IP with impunity.

    Xix.

    --
    "Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
    1. Re:Businness friendly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In one direction, in the OTHER direction it's the complete opposite.

      Plus the "having the code == having the software" problem means that in the direction that you are concerned about the GPL still does nothing to protect the company from sales fraud.

  94. The Answer - Re:yes, but by bazik · · Score: 1
    cat /boot/vmlinuz > /dev/dsp
    --


    --
    One by one the penguins steal my sanity...
  95. Re:Linus regard for customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I tried the XFCE4 beta briefly, and it seemed sortof messey after my Openbox+ROX setup... that could just be me though.

  96. See also: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Monty Python's The Life of Brian

  97. first post anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can be the first to comment on this story !

    Did anyone see the above? It says so right under the CRN article.

    whatever

  98. Re:Linus regard for customers by transiit · · Score: 1

    Proudly running Slackware since 97.

    I've got nothing against debian (well, perhaps dselect is a bit crufty), but I'll agree that apt is quite the little charmer, especially if you're responsible for large numbers of machines that you need to keep up to date.

    As for the really high-speed/low-drag sort of window managers, I've found pwm to be rather nice (I like being able to group windows.), and during the occassional flight of fancy, I'll use ion (the most obsessive compulsive window manager ever. All the space on your screen is used at all times. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work out so hot, especially when dealing with programs that make a lot of assumptions about window-sizing)

    -transiit

  99. Damnit SCO! by 1s44c · · Score: 1

    It will soon be 'SCO/Linux (c) SCO, all rights reserved.'

  100. Re:Linus regard for customers by 1s44c · · Score: 1


    You do it because you love it, otherwise you find something else to do otherwise you'll always be second rate.

    So very true... I'm totally sick of the in it for the money types.

    Hopefully a lot of the lamers will get out of IT now the dot com bubble has burst.

  101. Re:I haven't done more than peek at the kernel sou by TheDredd · · Score: 1

    They claim to own rights in code that IBM wrote

    Then IBM must have signed some insane license agreement when they licensed code for AIX.
    Something along the lines of: We[IBM] don't own any of the code we write.

    Sounds a bit far fetched if you ask me. Nobody would be stupid enough to sign a deal where every line of code you write (in fact for ever since you signed the deal, because how are your going to prove you didn't write the code while the license was still valid), wouldn't be your property and to do what it whatever you please

  102. Re:Linux IP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have serious mental problems. I am not flaming or trolling.

  103. Re:GNAA Says Linux is gay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go start your own damn club fag boy.

  104. Re:Torvald's isn't a lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    trie nott too mispel thingz wehn yuo aer calilng soemoen ay dumas.

  105. Re:Linus regard for customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they do get out of IT they will probably become lawyers.

  106. Re:Linus regard for customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once a YEAR!! Damn, mine hits me up once a week at the very least...

    Hold on to that one!

  107. shouldnt it be Linux/GNU? by dmnic · · Score: 1

    since Linux is the kernel the GNU software is run on

  108. Whenever I pee... by jvollmer · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    it makes a sound.

    If it's not Consolidated Lint, it's just fuzz.

  109. Ummm, no by TheConfusedOne · · Score: 2, Informative

    What Linus was saying about patents was that he will not actively go and search out patents to see if a development is infringing. This is considered the proper practice for engineers as it would eliminate any possible clean-room development defense if they looked at the patents, AND (to make matters worse) patents are so horribly written that you may not even recognize an infringing item.

    As for the RCU, he was extra careful because it was a known fact that IBM had a patent related to the code in question. So, he was being careful to make IBM formally license the patent before including the code.

    --
    --- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
  110. Yes, but... by autechre · · Score: 1

    While it's true that no consumer would have to return the TV, they might have trouble getting it fixed. The recording studio at WMBC has a 24-channel mixer by Behringer. Behringer totally ripped of the design from Mackie, was sued, and lost. So the last time I got it fixed, it was $12 parts and $375 labor, because it's impossible to get information about it. "Get another one" is not an option for a college station.

    Now, this shouldn't be a problem with Linux in the long run, as whatever code is deemed to be infringing (if any) can be removed/replaced. Heck, if I had to, I could revert all our machines back to 2.2.x until it all blew over. Fortunately, software is a lot more flexible than hardware. I just hope that, in the event that SCO wins, there aren't any Linux appliances out there that can't be easily updated to the "new" kernel.

    --
    WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
  111. Re:Linus regard for customers by Zeebs · · Score: 1

    Hey, if a girl asked you if you will set up a direct deposit, the only thing I'd ask is Your place or mine?

    --

    Happy Noodle Boy says "F###ing doughnut! Mock me? You fried cyclops!!"
  112. Question for the BSD users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As soon as this whole lawsuit stuff was coming around, many *BSD users were saying "Well, look what happened to BSD when some company tried to lay claim to its code", and "I wouldn't take this lawsuit stuff lightly", etc. The BSD guys claim that even tho BSD won the AT&T lawsuit, people still dropped it for Linux.

    If this lawsuit stuff is true for BSD, then it should be true for Linux. Agreed.

    However, if people don't switch to BSD in droves because of this lawsuit, doesn't that disprove the "Linux is popular only because of the BSD lawsuit" theories that so many BSD uses claim?

    What I'm saying is that once this lawsuit stuff is over with and people are still using Linux, that the idea that Linux because popular mainly because of the BSD lawsuit is bullshit. Would you agree, or will there be another reason why this lawsuit stuff is different?

  113. Linux IP by red+floyd · · Score: 1

    I thought it was 198.182.196.56!

    --
    The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
  114. Really? by wjeff · · Score: 0

    and what do most programmers do every time they sign and employment agreement with a software company?

    --
    my old sig is obsolete, and I haven't come up with a stupid enough new one yet
  115. speaking of IP by heppe · · Score: 1

    There's an idea that I had that I just wanted to get out in public so that no one can patent it: to encode a polygonal mesh as the union of a) separately encoded connectivity w/o geometry; and b) an unordered cloud of points to provide geometry w/o connectivity. The two would then be married with prediction algorithms typical of connectivity compression, with small corrective factors along the way. My plan was to resolve vertex id's in the same order that the standard edgebreaker traversal discovers them. Any new vertex that didn't have a full parallelogram to do its completion with (which would, of course, include the very first triangle), would be encoded with an explicit id in the point cloud. All others would predict as before, and then the encoding would be something like "take the 5th closest vertex to your assumed location".

  116. No, no, no . . . by Anonymous+Shepard · · Score: 1

    Mixes of Star Wars characters you cannot have people be. Exact analogies you must have.

    --
    I have a life. I really do. I've just chosen to ignore it.
  117. Re:Secrecy in the Mormon church. by On+Lawn · · Score: 1

    for talking about what goes on the in the temple.

    Yet anyone can enter that wishes to do what it takes. Its not a secret. Its not like "no one named `bill' can know this".

    Its not uncommon in society to see behavioural conduct as requirements to be a part of what the constitution considers a "free association". Its considered free becuase the state holds no restrictions on who is associating and what behavioural (as long as those behavoirs are not illegal) restrictions that association feels are a part of its charter.

    To restrict all associations to include everyone would be, alas, a restriction on "free association" and is why such restrictions have been stricken down in the courts.

    But it is a free association. People simply need to live a certain set of guidelines (membership in the church for a year, honesty in your dealings, fidelity to your wife, no alterior deceptive purposes for going and following a dietary guide). Anyone can really go in there. In fact its often pointed out that 50,000+ people go around the world each year encouraging people to get in.

    In the linux world, this is not unlike the reasoning for Debian to have closed mailing lists or requirements to associate on them. A certain basic requirement to make sure people are really there to work and not be contrary to the purpose of the association is not a sinister purpose.

    The "free agency" that the Mormon church talks about has nothing to do with Linux.

    Your right. One is an operating system the other is a doctrine that states "you can do anything you wish but you can't excape the consequences of your actions".

    Are you a convert or life member?

    Both...

    You ever heard about how the Mormon's practiced communism in the early days of the church (Oh I'm sorry they called something like "the law of concecration")

    Probably better refered to as the "United Order" since the law of consecration is not incompatible with the monetary system in the church. People still vow to live that law even without the United Order in practice. It essentially says that you'll join everyone else in devoting everything to a common cause that is important for everyone. That common cause is specific, but essentially that is what its about.

    But it isn't communism, specific stewardships are assigned to specific individuals without property being in common. What makes it so socialistic is that people offered there services free of charge to those in need. Mechanics would simply fix the buggies around them, and Doctors would simply heal people without the paper-reciept based economy the US uses. Everyone would work where they could, meaning doctors and laberours would harvest wheat when needed and such. Its may be somewhat socialist, but no property was considerd in common between people.

    One could say it works more like the kitzva's (?) in the country of Israel.

    If you didn't practice this law, you were execumenicated. (I know i'm spelling that wrong, but you get my poing.)

    The pattern was more like they said they'd live it but then got greedy. But I'm not privy to every case. Either way people that never agreed to it were never excommunicated for it (that I'm aware of).

    But I'll say that the Linux development model is probably a lot like how software would be developed in the United Order. Linux has been describes as the OS that gives you warm fuzzies for knowing your part of a great help-each-other-out community. I think thats very much in common with the United Order and one of the reasons I love Linux.

  118. FUD is also FUD when it comes from Slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the sad part about that is, a majority of /. posters are completely unaware of how the world actually works.

  119. Hey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are YOU the fuck that removed the ability to have IDE cards on IRQs other than 14 and 15 in the last "Stable" kernel release? THANKS A LOT YOU 'TARD! Stable my fucking ass! :) :(

  120. Re:WTF by josh+crawley · · Score: 1

    Comic Book Guy? From the Simpsons? Is that you?