Slashdot Mirror
SCO Calls GPL Unenforceable, Void
wes33 writes "Groklaw has a link
to SCO's replies to IBM's amended complaints. Some
choice bits: '6th Affirmative Defense -
The GPL is unenforceable, void and/or voidable, and IBM's claims
based thereon, or related thereto, are barred. ... 7th Affirmative Defense - The GPL is selectively enforced by the Free Software Foundation
such that enforcement of the GPL by IBM or others is waived, estopped or otherwise barred as a matter of equity. ... 8th Affirmative Defense -
The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust
and export control laws, and IBM's claims based theron, or related thereto, are barred.' Comments are pouring in ... not all of them
complimentary to SCO or its legal strategy." Considering that the GPL and the GNU project rely on and affirm the protections of copyright, this seems like a strange argument to pursue.
The only problem with all things I see here is DarlandCo. will probably never see the inside of a prison cell, which is unfortunate.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
It just wouldn't feel like the start of the week without some new mind-numbingly idiot drivel from the SCO.
I guess IBM didn't want to show them their IP without a crippling NDA, so this is their next best attempt.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
It makes me want to cry. Sheer greed. Why can't they leave well enough alone? We aren't harming -anyone- or stealing -anything-. Why can't they allow us the freedom to do free things for ourselves?
..."GPL is dead" ?
that's it. re-fauxking-boot.
7th Affirmative Defense: The GPL is selectively enforced.
8th Affirmative Defense: The GPL is Unconstitutional and invalid.
9th Affirmative Defense: ???
10th Affirmative Defense: Profit!
Whatever it is I'm complaining about, I'm sure the Republicans did it. This is
Over a 4% drop after hours looks like the investors are starting to lose faith in their questionable legal strategy. I wonder if SCO will just drop the suit once all the exec have finished dumping their stock.
LOL!
Wow, now, I understand the legal "carpet bombing" theory, but COME ON NOW.
Then again, I'd like to "violate" certain folks at SCO, I'm sure they'd love a little man-meat...
Now we know the REAL strategy. The point of the entire excercise is for Microsoft and their cronies to destroy the GPL and free software. Who didn't see this coming? It is time for WAR!
Only want SCO is gonna win is if they start sharnig some of that crack.
I can see SCO being DOS'ed out of existence soon.
"Comments are pouring in ... not all of them complimentary to SCO or its legal strategy"
/. article will help at least
This
This hasn't gone to trial, and you have thousands and THOUSANDS of developers who agree, "You can't do this or that unless you follow the following."
Pretty big words for a company who has no berring over how the law is interpreted. Take it to court first.. we'll get the official word and the plausable reasons first.
--
"I'm not bright. Big words confuse me. But Wanda loves me and that should be enough for you." - Cosmo
At least he proves that people can run around beeing flaming idiots, thus upholding the bill of rights.
"The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright (laws),"
:)
Yes! I, too, feel that current copyright laws violate the U. S. Constitution! I'm glad somebody has finally come on-board with this, even if it is SCO.
Hibbert: Aaah. Diagnosis -- delicious.
Homer: I've got the presciption for you, another hot beef injection!
damn, they just majorly shot themselves in the foot and blew their own case. I mean, that's like taking a rocket launcher to kill a tiny ant crawling across your new shoes. It's jus too funny. That's going to come back and haunt them in court.
It doesn't matter how the EFF handles GPL violations since they are not the licensor. If they were, then unequal application of the GPL would only invalidate (if it did invalidate) the licence of the GPL software owned by the EFF.
If Linus is unequal in his pursuit of his intellectual property rights vis a vis the GPL that only renders Linus property rights at issue, not the GPL. The GPL is a licence (like the Microsoft Shared Source Licence, or even EULA) and not an institution. Since the GPL is one of the more innovative licences we often lose sight of that fact.
(IANAL, of course)
Failing Prominently!
For me I never posted on Slashdot before. I do like the GPL though! It's agonising to see the GPL is still untested after all this time. Do you think it will be SCO that sets some legal precedents for the GPL?
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
Later,
Phil
Why would a Wookiee -- an eight foot tall Wookiee -- want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!
But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does that have to do with this case?
Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!
Look at me, I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.
And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.
If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
SCO has failed!
I don't like the GPL anyway. If the GPL turns out to be void, people would have to use other, better licences like the BSD or MIT licenses.
What would happen to all that GPL code? Would it become public domain?
Anonymous Coward calls WinXP EULA Unenforcable and Void. This gives me a right to make as many copies as I want, as there's nothing governing it.
Seriously, the GPL only grants rights that copyright would normally restrict. What freedom are they trying to gain by declaring the GPL unenforcable?
Royal Bank of Canada Invests in SCO 30 out of a 50 million investment.
Is that so? Well, FUCK SCO.
feel free to use the pateNTdead eyecon0meter kode as needed.
You mean I can break any license I want if it's unenforcable? I can just say "they can't catch me" and that's a valid legal reason to declare a license void?
Schweet! I have an unlimited number of win9x copies now, because all those licences are VOID BABY! Music copyright? Unenforcable, therefore VOID BABY!
SCO allegations unenforcable? I have an unspecified copies of unspecified versions of unspecified distributions of Linux... SCO can't enforce anything on me, so their claims are VOID BABY, YEA!
"Your Honor, I'd like to cite precident, SCO vs. everyone, in which it was ruled that any unenforcable license is void. Since I'm only being tried for stealing a tenth of the stuff I stole, but you can't prove I stole the other stuff, the licenses covering all of it is void. I move for dismissal of all charges plus I claim ownership of every physical object my stolen stuff touched, because their ownership rights is unenforcable and therefore void."
If the GPL is unenforceable, then unless SCO got written permission to distribute the code by all the myriad other kernel contributors (and in fact the developers of every other bit of GPL'ed software that they are distributing in their own distr - still available via FTP) then they themselves are in breach of all those people's copyright over code they wrote.
Please, I beg ANY developers of GPL'ed code that is in SCOs distro on their FTP site. Please sue these bastards for breach of copyright. I am willing to pony up $100 to anybody about to do this.
This madness has just got to end.
What on earth? IANAL, but isn't the whole basis of copyright law that the copyright holder can do whatever the hell he wants to with his material? It may be the case that the GPL is selectively enforced--possible if highly doubtful--but to call it unconstitutional is like saying that laws protecting churches from arson (like all buildings are protected from arson) are unconstitutional because they represent an establishment of religion.
I want those 5 minutes of my life back, dammit.
SCO's research team announces break-through partnership with CIA, distributing their newly-announced SuperCrack(tm).
"Our field testing has proven very effective," says Ralph Synles, head of SCO R&D, "Subjects spend almost every waking moment in a projected fantasyland, and the way their hearts are racing, I would say they are high as fucking hell."
"Pink fuzzy secret code wonderful property tastes like intellectual NDA violations. Call my stock broker!" SCO's CEO, Daryl McBride, was quoted as saying, before giggling and waving around several blank sheets of printer paper.
PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
You know, this sounded rediculous to me.. and it still does of course.. but in discussing this with other people, who perhaps are victims of anti-OSS fud...
There are a great many people out there who believe things like:
You can't write commercial software for linux; if you use GCC to build something, it's GPL also. and so on.
The GPL is only enforced by the FSF. All GPL code belongs to the FSF.
They do NOT see it as just like any other operating system.. they think you are bound to keep everything you do with it open and free.
Until now, one PHB or other could be tempted to think that there was somre reasoning to them.
But that is it. With these claims, in any country were law and rights could be barely understood as such, it would be a matter of FSF stepping in and getting SCO shut down forever.
In USA lets see how much time does it take to happen.
-><- no
This is how I understand it:
Copyright law says that I, as creator of my work, can control how it is used and by whom.
Licences give me the power to selectively allow freedoms to be given out.
The Microsoft EULA is an example of such a licence, in which paying the licence fee for a Microsoft product allows limited usage of the product as per the terms of the licence. That's what one pays for when they get the product, the right to use it under the terms of the accompanying licence.
The General Public Licence allows one as a Copyright owner to selectively give rights to users to use the product as long as they accept the licence. Said licence tells them that any derivative works must also be licenced under the GPL.
So what am I missing here? Is SCO saying that licences shouldn't exist? Are they saying that Copyright law is wrong? Have they just simply gone out of their minds? Because the licensing business model has existed in the software industry for ages.
The idea behind the GPL is nothing new, it's just intended to guarantee freedom rather than restrict it. It's another type of licence, and it's certainly as valid as something any other software vendor would choose to put on their products.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
I'm not even getting my popcorn out.
Seriously. There've been so many times when nerds have asserted that, "This'll be the case to prove the GPL! Yeah!" and they never come to fruition.
So no, I'm not sitting eagerly in my chair waiting for the trail to start. This is a non-story that reporters are following because nothing better is worth writing about right now.
Oh well.
-Adam
I'm not the world's biggest GPL fan. But reading it rightside up, upside down, and backwards held to a mirror, it's seems to me to be a valid license in every way. There may be some very minor issues regarding definitions, but there's nothing there that SCO can use to wiggle out of their current predicament.
The US courts have upheld the much more lenient BSD license, and many much more restrictive EULAs, so the GPL seems quite court-safe where it is in the middle.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
SCO: All your UNIX belong to us!
I'm convinced. I better get my license fee in before it's too late...
NOT!
This space for rent.
7th Affirmative Defense - The GPL is selectively enforced by the Free Software Foundation such that enforcement of the GPL by IBM or others is waived, estopped or otherwise barred as a matter of equity
I guess they don't know the difference between copyright and trademark. Selective enforcement has zero effect on enforcebility of copyright. Black letter law.
8th Affirmative Defense - The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws, and IBM's claims based theron, or related thereto, are barred.'
Export control laws? I see, now. Their defense is "We're to fucking retarded that we need a keeper. Please give us money."
They forgot to mention that the GPL makes the Baby Jesus cry.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
I dunno if anyone saw this or cares, but I used my (lack of) GIMP skills to make some borg/SCO icons at the request of KilobyteKnight... it just got posted late so I don't know if anyone saw it.
As I said previously, these just differ by filter; I couldn't decide which I liked. Feel free to use them however.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Have you read ESR's letter to SCO? These are not the people we should have representing us.
SCO Calls GPL Unenforceable, Void
I could've told ya that.
There are many industries where a few jerks with fat legal budgets and little to no conscience have made enormous amounts of money by screwing over the American people. Some would say the most integral part of any free market is the possibility of consumers doing violence to producers, not just by boycotting and shunning their product but actually by burning their offices to the ground, you know, as with many logging, chemical, animal experimentation companies. As long as there are angry people with matches and gasoline, a broken legal system (as any legal system cannot help but be) can coexist with a happy populace.
They quite knowingly accepted the terms and conditions of the GPL, long before they ever acquired the rights to UNIX or worked on Project Monterey. Even if by some crazy ludicrous miracle of stupidity they actually managed to get anywhere with their lawsuit regarding Unix rights, I'd be incredulous to see them get anywhere with attempts to prosecute users of Linux, commercial or otherwise.
Despite verbosity, IANAL
"Give away the stone, let the oceans take and transmutate this cold and faded anchor." - Maynard James Keenan
I think we can all agree that SCO can cram it with walnuts.
(... and OpenBSD may be your family's only line of defense.)
If the GPL stands up in court, it's SCO's case that is going to be crippled.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
It's a shame that IBM can't buy out SCO without a bunch of assholes making a lot of money. IBM should do some crazy hostile takeover of SCO.
In South Park voice...
SCO killed GPL!!
You bastards!
of Monty Pythons Holy Grail.
Daryl - Maybe if we built a large wooden badger.
Oh how the world would be a better place if frivilous lawsuits were illegal.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Wow. And to think that they had STFU for almost 2 weeks. Did the stock drop a bit? Hmmmm. Yup, they were well overdue for more outrageous statements.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
any lciense that relies on US and or Geneva copyright laws and statues is enforceable including GPL, LGPl and SCO's onw copyrightlicense..
if GPL i s not enforceable ie US and or geneva copyright law is somewho overturn in courts than SCO's own copyright license is also not enforceable!
Don't Tread on OpenSource
it. just. gets. better.
This is such a stupid move. If they want to claim that GPL is unenforceable, then SCO cannot enjoy the 'right to distribute' granted by GPL in their Linux products, effective IMMEDIATELY. That's to say, every GPL software authors can now request billions dollars for each copy of every GPL software distributed. KA-CHING!!!!!!
And since this is a self-proclaimed revocation of right on their side, thus a purely case of refusial of license agreement in the deal, i.e. no need to root-up the entire industry by applying this unique license-violation case to all other GPL users.
When I thought hiring monkeys as programmers is bad enough....lawyers...
Since when do you need to be 'equitable' with enforcement of copyrights (which is all the GPL is)? Never!
A copyright is just like a patent, you can let it lapse as long as you want and enforce it the last year if you so please, and against whoever you want. That's what lets you keep profiles of 'defensive patents', that's what let Unisys try to collect on it's GIF patent 2 years before it was going to expire. That's what let some company claim copyright on the movie "it's a wonderful life" after everyone thought it was in the public domain for decades.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Excuse me, SCO, but it seems that now, instead of a couple hundred lines of unsubstantiated code, we now have YOU in massive, willful, and continual violation of the FSFs copyright(The gpl assigns a copyright to the fsf, if I'm not mistaken, probably to assist in attacking offenders). Because of this, you LOSE the court case with IBM by default, you FORFEIT any claim to the Linux Operating System, or the many GPL licensed software packages the platform is built upon, as well as any revenue you have earned through the unlawful sale of Linux, and SCO Group will now be branded as hypocrites forevermore, so the company will be destroyed, and you, Mr. Mcbride, will be held responsible for it's extremely humiliating public defeat.
Have a nice day.
It's been a long time.
Doesn't matter.
If the FSF decides to selectively enforce the GPL and in some way that manages to release their copyright (stay with me).
How exactly does this action relate to IBM?
Even if the FSF was selectively enforcing trademarks, how does that relate to IBMs rights?
No 10th affirmative Defense of Heresy, or Blasephemy? I should probably be quiet they may append this to thier suit.
How is it that the press (once again) fails to run with the fact that SCO signed onto and continues to use GPL software IN THEIR OWN PRODUCT! SAMBA, GCC, and more are contained within UnixWare and yet this seemingly important and obvious fact doesn't seem to escape the tech circles.
"SCO? Strong buy, strong, strong BUY!"
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
In some jurisdictions, bringing a frivolous lawsuit is the crime of barratry. Even in states without tough anti-barratry laws, "pump and dump" is still securities fraud.
Will I retire or break 10K?
"...not all of them complimentary to SCO or its legal strategy."
Ya think?
Fine the GPL is invalid, SCO has knowinlgy committed copyright violations, wouldn't this intent result in higher penalties or damages.
Everyone else thought they had a valid licence to distribute linux.
In their Sixth Affirmative Defense, they say:
"The General Public License ('GPL') is unenforceable, void and/or voidable, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred."
Claiming the GPL is void, one can only assume that they could not possibly be using Linux under the GPL anymore. Yet they still do, and they still plan on using GPL software for new products. I think you could take a look at the CREDITS file in the linux source tree to think of the number of people that can be included in a possible lawsuit against SCO. The fact the use _other_ GPL programs means that any GPL program author may be (at least loosely) included as well. And I tell you what SCO, I think that includes me.
Yeah yeah nigger bitch fuck mother fuck fuck motherfucker nigger yeah.
American weapons inspectors working throughout the Iraqi country side are claiming that the GPL is seriously hindering their efforts to find Saddam's cache of WMD. When asked how exactly it is hindering the effort an inspector replied, "It's just un-American and that's bad mmmkay."
Futhermore, high ranking army officers are also said to be frustrated by the GPL. "It is quite simply conter-productive in our efforts to find Saddam and to bring law and order to Iraq", said an officer, speaking under anonymity.
And finally, graffiti was seen on Redmond, WA train claiming, "GPL = French". Underneath was written, "it's '==' you insensitive clod".
"She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush Iraqis
*whimper* I actually have tears in my eyes right now... Not because I am sad but because this is too freaking funny.
Seriously, can a comedian even make this shit up?
If what you are reading sounds funny, or sarcastic, lame, or stupid
it is because it is supposed to be. just laugh
Let's see if I have this right.
Linux is free software, that everyone participates in making, and then gets to use for free.
SCO distributed Linux itself, until very recently. It was also selling its own "competing" product at the same time.
Now SCO is claiming that some of their "valuable" property was incorporated into Linux - without their knowledge. They're demanding everyone who uses Linux pay them for it (at a price they've just determined) - or face lawsuits.
They're refusing to reveal what was "stolen." (More accurately, they will only show evidence to those who sign an unacceptably onerous non-disclosure agreement.) Not the actions of a company with a good case, but let us assume, since it is certainly possible, that some work of SCO's appears identical to some work inside Linux.
It is first of all not exactly obvious who copied whom. In the most similar case of years past, exactly such confusion resulted in a major legal reversal for one of Unix's past copyright holders. But let us even assume that someone secretly put some stolen SCO work inside Linux, since that is certainly also possible.
One of two things is true, then:
1) If you are a Linux user (who unwittingly received a bit of SCO's property), you have to pay whatever SCO asks, even if you didn't know (and had no way of knowing) you were using "stolen code"!
This means that SCO is in massive trouble, since they violated the licenses of all the Linux contributors _themselves_, by distributing Linux with their proprietary code incorporated into it. This is forbidden by the GPL (Linux's license), which (basically) forces participants to contribute their work for free or not at all. (That's the whole point of the affair, really.) And as we just established, ignorance is not an excuse. The fact that SCO might not have known they were breaking this rule wouldn't save them.
Result? Several thousand Linux contributors (a group which includes some very large, wealthy businesses) sue SCO for violating _their_ licenses, which specifically forbade this in the first place. SCO goes bankrupt.
-- OR --
2) If you are a Linux user (who unwittingly received a bit of SCO's property), it's _not_ your problem, because you didn't _know_ there was a problem, and once you found out, you replaced the "stolen code" - by downloading a patch, most likely. Right after SCO gets around to telling people what was stolen, that is. (Which they will do eventually?)
If ignorance is SCO's excuse, it's everyone's excuse. It means THERE IS NO DANGER TO ANY LINUX USER from SCO, because nobody was knowingly involved in these affairs, except potentially IBM (who stands accused of having actually done the deed). If there was any improper copying, it's IBM's problem - which is as it should be (although apparently even that part of SCO's story is questionable).
Result? SCO's threats to sue Linux users are actually a nasty and libelous publicity stunt, and a number of affected business (IBM, Redhat, Dell, Suse, etc) sue them as a result. SCO goes bankrupt.
I can't figure out how SCO's threats to "license Linux users" to the tune of hundreds or even thousands a CPU is anything other than the business world's equivalent of an April Fool's joke.
You can make specious legal threats about any product - open source or closed source. The fact that Linux is a target this time is only a sign of its continually increasing importance.
If you want my take on it, some people sitting in big offices (picture Microsoft and Sun logos on the walls) saw the recent spate of articles about high-profile defections from their own products to Linux, and pushed the "panic button." They encouraged and financed a proxy (SCO) in the advertisement of an elaborate legal fiction in hopes of slowing the hemorrhaging. It's clever, good old-fashioned American business strategy at its finest (no holds barred competition in anything but quality or price). I don't think it will save them, either. And I _think_ it's going to leave a smoking crater where the proxy used to be.
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
Guess what guys! Everybody who has copyright on a GPL'd piece of software can now sue EVERYBODY who has distributed copies!
Linus, RMS, everybody who ever put out a GPL'd bit of software can now tear that license right up.
Since the GPL is not enforcable, there's no reason to keep your promise of not suing re-distributers who've followed the terms! Because the terms are unenforcable!
Seriously, has SCO even *read* the GPL? Who can something that grants permissions be unenforcable????
That's not the only place his violations can be realised.
If the GPL is invalid, then while SCO was redistributing Linux (and still continued to do so after bringing suit), the company was infringing copyright, because nothing other than the GPL gives SCO the privilege to do that. If SCO gets the GPL on Linux declared illegal, watch kernel contributors with deep pockets sue SCO for copyright infringement.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Let's keep in mind that patents are in place to keep lawyers employed and keep them litigating. -CatGrep
Doesn't SCO ship GNU software (Samba is what I'm thinking of) with their UNIX system? They use a license that they are claiming to be unconstitutional?
First of all, I'd like them to explain which part of the constitution it violates. Secondly, if they could prove it does... I'd like to see them get sued for breaking the law!
Hypocrisy is the 8th deadly sin.
see the body of my original reply :D
This article itself is a troll. Every SCO press release in the last year is flamebait. Dont bite.
This just gets better and better. This reminds me of my WWII History. Around 1944 when Hitler was loosing it and moving fake divisions around a map making bold statements and crazy orders. If I remember it correctly, the staff called it his, "Crazy kooko land". SCO sues Microsoft next, and sells licenses to Coleco.
Except today's political environment has seen fit to twist copyright arguments into whatever the most powerful PAC is looking for that day.
This is just going to get uglier once it gets to court unless we get lucky enough to have a very tech-savvy AND copyright-savvy court hearing it.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/10/27/HNscoenf orce_1.html
Some good quotes:
A lawyer representing the Free Software Foundation (FSF) disputed SCO's claims that the FSF is the only organization with the necessary legal standing to launch a GPL-based lawsuit. Since IBM holds the copyright to much of the Linux kernel software that is distributed under the GPL license, it has every right to enforce the GPL, he argued.
"The proper enforcer of a copyright is the copyright holder," said Eben Moglen, general counsel for the FSF. "IBM says, 'You're using a copyrighted work of ours in a fashion which is prohibited by the Copyright Act, and you're doing so without our permission. You owe us damages and you must stop.'"
The U.S. constitution is a document which specifies the powers of the government, and the limitations in the applications of said powers. There is only one entity which can be guilty of violating the constitution: the federal government[1].
:)
RMS and the FSF are private individuals. They are free to release their works under whatever terms they wish, including no copyright at all, without violating the Constitution. Statute law is another thing; however, it's doubtful that a statute would be passed mandating SCO's version of copyright in the near future, since that would run counter to established copyright principles that have been in place for two centuries.
[1]I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I believe it's also a law or at least a convention that state governments abide by the principles set forth in the US constitution. It could be merely the laws of competition, however: if Massachusetts were suddenly to become a communist dictatorship, states like Connecticut, Vermont and Maine can expect a sudden population jump.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
What would IBM want with SCO? There is no doupt that IBM can buy SCO, and it is a common stragity when a company like IBM is on the wrong side of a court battle against a little guy like SCO. However when you are in the right it is often better to fight it out. Not only do you win (IBM has good lawyers), but you send a message to others that fighting IBM isn't an easy way to get money.
IBM will get the right people to look into how SCO has been manipulating its' stock.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It's funny, because they distribute all kinds of GPL code right here:
S RP MS/
ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/OpenLinux311/Workstation/
the FSF just declared SCO void.
I call SCO fucking gay
I mean recycleing old jokes is great to earn karma but at least take the time to replace "major record company" with SCO.
This is a SCO story not a RIAA story or an MPAA story...other than that though that post should be good for at least a +3 funny on any of the above mentioned topics.
I just want to see this whole thing brought to light as an interesting retrospective on the future VH1 hit show, I love the 2000s, 2003 edition.
I hope they bring Gilbert Godfrey back to have him give a "SCO, What the f**k!?"
I'll pay money and give legal advise to anyone who wants to sue them GPL people
Oh yeah, #3 for sure.
:P
BTW... Am I the only one out there who thinks the Caldera icon looks like a global Mickey Mouse?
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
I say SCO is a big pile of poo!
Does that make it so? No, even though it may be true.
Funny how a company trying to revoke a "irrevokable" contract is calling a similar contract Unenforceable.
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
SCO had the gall to cite ESR's definition of 'FUD,' which at the time related the origin of the acronym as applied to IBM. When their papers were already filed with the court, ESR tacked on a little 'bonus,' which the court will read because SCO cited it:
http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/F/FUD.html
There are a lot of people who don't really believe a contract is valid until it has been tested in court. So, this is good. Let's test the GPL and finish passing that milestone. The GPL seems 100% solid to me.
guys, none of this matters.
:)
people will continue to work on linux, there will always be a way to get linux, and we will all continue to use it.
so just sit back and ignore the legal BS. it'll blow over. it's not like we won't be using linux a year from now because of this.
to give you an example, has all the RIAA legal BS kept anyone from massively trading MP3s? nope, at least not me or any of my friends. there will always be a way. if you can listen to music, you can record it, period.
Denies the allegations of paragraph 16 and alleges that Linux is, in actuality, an unauthorized version of UNIX that is structured, assembled and designed to be technologically indistinguishable from UNIX, and practically is distinguishable only in that Linux is a 'free' version of UNIX designed to destroy proprietary operating system software.
Thats like saying that Ford cant make 4 door, gasoline combustion, 4 wheeled, bucket seat, fully-painted, 2 axled, single steering wheeled, D.O.T. certified horseless carriage and sell it (or give it away if it was so inclined) becuase it resembled something similar to a Toyota Product.
?WTF?
....move along....nothing to see here....
sounds like it came straight from him.
Do you think anyone will buy SCO's products in the future?
What up and coming IT person is going to even consider SCO, after the way they have carried on?
Just sit back, their funds will dry up soon.
i have said it before, and i will say it again...
SCO has every reason in the world to see the GPL killed. That reason is that they have (most likely) been using GPL'd code in their proprietary code. They want to see the GPL nulled and voided so that when "they win their case", they can, at a later date, keep right on using Linux code in their shitty products.
i'll keep saying it - this is the whole of the "why" behind their case, i'm telling you. They don't want to have to pay up to anyone - let alone thousands of individuals, for abusing their GPL code in their products...
because after this - everyone will go after them.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
...but to each his own.
9th Affirmative Defense - IBM is a company full of poopy-heads and their defense is thus null and void. This affirms our liar-liar-pants-on-fire claim.
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
Seriously. There've been so many times when nerds have asserted that, "This'll be the case to prove the GPL! Yeah!" and they never come to fruition.
True, but has there ever been a case on this large a scale, where a large part of the plaintiff's case involved attacking the GPL directly? I think the issue had previously just been skirted around. SCO seems to be forcing the issue, so a ruling will have to be made on the legality of the GPL.
Geez... Been in law school for under 3 months and it's already coming in handy.
The deal behind the litany of affirmative defenses is that under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules 8(c)-8(d), for those who care), if SCO doesn't assert these defenses in its response, then it can't assert them later. So, the standard trick for lawyers is to put in everything but the kitchen sink.
Also, under rule 8(e), they're allowed to state as many defenses as they can, 'regardless of consistency.'
Now, they're really only supposed to list the real defenses and they could get into trouble for listing frivolous ones (I think their first affirmative defense is frivolous, for example). But, sanctions for this sort of thing don't happen as often as they probably should. They do run the risk of PO'ing the judge, though....
Pray they don't find the GPL unenforceable. Yes, SCO could get sued by quite a few of these project owners, however you're missing the point:
SCO DOESN'T CARE
There's no principle in it for them here. McBride talks about getting 'square' or 'clean', but he's laughing at all of us. That's not the intent at all.
They aren't in this to prove anything other than trying to find out how much wealth the execs can aquire before it all comes crashing down. SCO WILL go down - let's hope they don't take the GPL with them.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Troll, troll, troll let the good times roll! Hey look, a troll that rimes. What do you bet this troll gets modded as TROLL!
Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.
So after reading your post, I thought "Hm, I wonder if SCO is still distributing or selling Linux somewhere." So I went to SCO's front page just to poke at it out of mild, idle curiousity. There's a little box on the front page that says "Looking for a promotion, contest, or campaign? Enter keyword here." If you enter something that's an SCO product it forwards you there. If you enter anything else it forwards you to a search page. Okay, I thought, what the heck, let's see what happens when I type in "linux". I did so, and to my surprise was promptly forwarded to
/products/linux/ on this server.
http://www.sco.com/products/linux/, which said only:
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access
For no good reason, I find this funny.
P.S. Searching for "Caldera Linux", on the other hand, returned some search results, including this absolutely fascinating page, which describes a developer-only "technology preview" of.. "the upcoming linux 2.4 kernel". The page seems to still be under the impression you can still sign up for SCO's "OpenLinux Developer's Network". They have e-mail addresses and an 800 number that points to the voice mail of some poor fellow within SCO named "Chris Morris". Hm.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
No, they haven't said anything ridiculous enough yet. Let them claim that they'll be revising their claims against IBM for...
...and then, they'll get stupid investors again. If there's one thing the dot-com crash proved it's that there's a sucker born every minute.
ONE BILLION DOLLARS
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
This could be an interesting case to test and confirm the legal viability and enforceability of the GPL.
The importance of that is not trivial. It means that developers will not only be able to trust the GPL to protect the intentions they had when sharing their code, but also that whatever developers/companies were not taking the GPL seriously will have to change their attitude.
However, I can't help but wonder at the weakness of some of the assertions, in my non-lawyerish view. In particular:
"The GPL is selectively enforced by the Free Software Foundation such that enforcement of the GPL by IBM or others is waived, estopped or otherwise barred as a matter of equity."
What does this mean?
The original PDF seems to be slashdotted, so I can't help but think I'm missing something here.
Are they saying that because the FSF enforces the GPL for their software, I cannot enforce it for mine?!
Are they claiming that if I license my code under the GPL, I'm somehow magically transferring my copyrights to the FSF?
Or even worse, that I'm renouncing the rights to defend the copyrights I still own to give them to the FSF?
I don't get it.
When did I lose my rights to enforce the license I, as a developer, put on my own code?
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
The SEC has strict rules about how much public stock a executive of a company can sell at a time. Saying this is just some scheme by SCO to artificially increase their stock value so they can sell it is moronic. They might be able to sell 5% before the whole thing fell apart if this were true. SCO believes they will beat IBM in court, probably using unfair business practice laws. The copyright issue is a diversion from the real case
"-1, Redundant"
I would like to point you to our product page (http://www.xxxxxxxx.com); we provide xxxx xxxx systems to many large xxxx institutions around the world. Currently, we are based mainly on the Sun/Solaris platform, but are looking at moving to Intel due to customer demand.
After considering SCO's products, we have been forced to exclude them due to your court statements regarding the General Public License ("GPL"); specifically, that it is unenforceable. Considering that large parts of your latest products appear to be licensed under the GPL, we find it difficult to reconcile your legal position with the products you claim to supply. Instead, we have decided to go ahead with Red Hat's Advanced Server product.
Sincerely yours,
XXXX YYYY
ZZZZZ Co., Ltd.
The 9th affirmative defense is (really, not joking):
IBM's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, by the doctrine of judicial immunity and privilege.
How does the First get dragged into this?
Will their next argument be that GPL is voided by the right to arm bears?
Do it before they wise up to this. DO IT NOW, when their words are in contradiction to their aims. I'd do it in a heartbeat, but I don't know how to make it legal. Someone please help me out here.
Who will say, "I am an IBM lawyer. I have read the commands of the Open Source Community (provided through /.'s modern miracle) and will do as I have been told, instituting a scorched-earth policy which will insure that no 7th-generation descendant, even, of a current SCO officer will ever have food on the table or shoes in which to run from our hounds"?
Please, Ms. IBM Lawyer, assure us you are listening to our most-wise advice.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
/* DISCLAIMER:
This is not legal advice. You are not a client. I'm not even an attorney. If you want legal advice, contact an attorney admitted to the bar in your jurisdiction. What I am saying here is probably 100% wrong and if you do anything based on it, you are a blitering idiot who deserves whatever bad shit is very likely to befall you.
DISCLAIMER */
This isn't a big deal at all. In responding to a complaint, defendants will raise all manner of "affirmative defenses" so they cannot be later deemed to have waived them. For instance, a defense that "the complaint fails to state a claim under which relief may be granted" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is nearly universal, even though actually winning on that defense is rare. "Relief under FRCP 12(b)(6) is extraordinary and rarely granted," so says the case law. In fact, just about all of those FRCP 12(b) defenses are raised so as to avoid waiver.
Will SCO prevail on it? Probably not. But they've now preserved the defense for later (and for the interminable appeals that will ensue lest cooler heads prevail soon in this debacle.)
Originates with Shakespeare's Hamlet "For 'tis the sport to have the enginer / Hoist with his owne petar"(act III scene iv). Literal translation, "It's fun to see a bomber blown up by his own bomb."
How can something that is void, be voidable? ....
How does SCO propose to make any money on any of their product lines when they've pissed off their entire prospective customer base by either suing them or declaring their works and the copyleft under which they're released "unenforceable"? Don't they understand that when this is over, SCO software will be unwelcome in any data center?
#1 Aquire Hardware #2 Aquire Media #3 Install Linux #4 ??? #5 Profit >>> From a sign outside my door
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
Okay, let's all try to follow this. It's really quite simple.
SCO's argument is that GPL is violates the constitution (I assume they mean the Constitution of the United States, but maybe they mean the SCO constitution 'cause that would make more sense) and copyright laws. They don't really explain why, but I figure because it's a license that allows people to use software, it's therefore invalid??? Okay, whatever, but let's just assume that's it, 'cause that's kind of their argument, if there's any sense to be made here.
So, let's go on their assumption that licenses that allow people to use software are invalid, violate the constitution, blah blah blah. Then SCO's licenses are invalid, violate the constitution, blah blah blah.
I think the MPAA and RIAA really ought to jump on the bandwagon with SCO. With that kind of money and power put towards this kind of argument, everything will be free within months. Cool!
How much did SCO's lawyers charge for that document? That hunk of paper can't be good for SCO's bottom line...
This sig is the express property of someone.
that this particular product is cutting into what will become a trillion dollar industry.
Imagine if you had a company, and you managed to get your OS on every machine? that is a lot of machine to run your os, even at a buck a year.
Now imagine it all being given away.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Two points:
1) You have to realize that this is SCO's *Answer* to IBM's counterclaims. This means that it has to (a) respond point by point to IBM's complaint/counterclaim, admitting, denying, or otherwise, well, answering each allegation, and (b) give a list of "affirmative defenses" to IBM's overall complaint. (a) is self-explanatory. (b) is a list of arguments and/or facts that mean that, if true, even if everything that IBM alleged in its complaint/counterclaim is true, SCO should still prevail.
Hopefully you can guess, then, that the defense attorneys will throw pretty much anything they can think of into the "affirmative defenses" list. In fact, a lot of them are practically boilerplate -- they're things that "everyone" puts in an Answer. For example, the 25th AD says "IBM lacks standing to assert that SCO infringed some or all of the patents at issue." Of course the defense is going to throw this in -- it's a basic constitutional issue. The point is that SCO has to (in general; there are a few defenses SCO can raise later) plead any and all affirmative defenses it can think of in its answer, lest it waive any (which, obviously, would be bad for SCO and practically malpractice for its attorneys). Just as IBM doesn't have to have complete proof of each and every allegation in its complaint/counterclaim, SCO doesn't need complete proof for each reply and each of its affirmative defenses in its answer.
The claim that the GPL is unenforceable is, frankly, an obvious affirmative defense that really needed to be made in the reply. I would think, though, that SCO would prefer not to have to prove that particular defense.
2) People seem to be caught up in the "selective enforcement" affirmative defense. They are right that enforcement is wholly up to the copyright-holder. However, wrt the GPL, we're talking about a contract. Waiver and estoppel are easy and obvious defenses to make in litigation over contracts; I can't really imagine a situation where you wouldn't throw them into your reply as a matter of course.
Exactly. This scares businesses just like modern culture scares religious zealouts. It's something new that they can't control and don't understand so their first instinct is to bash it and quash it before it can spread. Besides, we all know who the real evil is behind the open source movement. Look at all the dirty bearded hippies and then cast your eyes halfway around the world at another group of scraggly bearded fellows. Open Source UNIX == Terrorism.
EVERYONE THAT HAS COMMITTED "ANY" CODE TO THE LINUX KERNEL, NEEDS TO CONTACT THE FSF AND/OR LINUS AND REQUEST THAT A CLASS ACTION SUIT BE STARTED TO RECOVER DAMAGES FROM SCO FOR VIOLATING THE GPL LICENSE, AND DEVALUING THE GPL'D LINUX KERNEL.
:-)
This is a perfectly practical way to gut SCO. It doesn't require a great deal of effort to get started. I cannot imagine that the FSF has not already considered this.
The damages could be paid through massive contributions by SCO to the FSF and OSDL.
Okay, it is just barely possible that a failure by the Free Software Foundation to enforce the GPL on works that the FSF holds the copyright to bars the FSF, as a matter of equity, form enforcing it on FSF-copyrighted works. "[M]atter of equity" is a rather broad argument, and a judge can drive a truck through it if he is so inclined, though it ups his chance of being reversed on appeal.
However, the actions of the FSF in no way impacts IBM's enforcment of its licensing terms for software to which it holds the copyright, whether or not they license it under the GPL. The FSF and IBM are different corporations, even if they, like SCO itself, have used the same license on some software.
Example: I could license software on which I hold the copyright to you under terms identical to a Microsoft license. I could then fail to enforce that license. That would in no way impact Microsoft's right to enforce its licenses on its software, ever. Similarly, how the FSF treats violations of FSF licenses to FSF code has no relevance to IBM's rights regarding violations of IBM licenses to IBM code.
Frankly, if I were the judge, I'd pin SCO's ears back for making the argument. Yes, shotgun claims area common practice, but this is especially ridiculous, and needs to be discouraged.
SCO DOESN'T CARE
What is it about this concept that few seem to grasp? NOTHING about what they are doing has anything to do with planning for a corporate 'future'.
This is all about Darl and the boyz kicking back with an alcoholic beverage on some island. There's more than enough obvious clues here:
The fact that you haven't seen David Boies - the wonder lawyer, since this began. The constant flow of ridiculous statements (no honest lawyer who cared about the outcome would allow this). The high ratio of exec stock sales. The fake stolen source code publically shown, universally disproven. All this and more proves that SCO doesn't care how it all turns out as long as the execs get to avoid jail time and enjoy their 'hard earned' cash.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
One question that's been nagging me is how passive the judicial system is in this case. I've never seen a court case like this where "motions" or "admendments" get passed around in the media, and where the major battles are fought in popular media (ie slashdot, fortune, etc) rather than in the courts. Has the judge actually said anything about this case? Everyone keeps on waiting for the moment the judge "laughs and throws out the court case", but when is that going to be? Wait for another year or so until the case gets into the court system? The law firms seem to be parrying and answering each other's accusations in a media hosted court, kinda like a medieval shouting match (aristotle vs. whatever tyrant of the day), and the US law system seems unable to do anything to bring decorum or even a sense of respectability and responsibility to what's comming out of these lawyer's mouths. That's what bothers me about all this.
And RedHat is still lurking...
I don't normally put a lot of stock in the Yahoo message boards as they relate to stocks, but in this case it's at least mildly interesting. I didn't do an exact count, but since the trading day began, it's looking something like several hundred strong sells vs 3 strong buys, at least, in the posts. That's got to be at least somewhat telling.
Man, I'd kill to have a wad of cash to short SCO right now.
As an aside, Scox is the name of a demon, more specifically a duke of Hell, in judeo-christian mythology.
:D
No, not related, why'd you ask?
Lex
1)
Curly: Yeah! Habius!
Mo: Shut up, ya moron, you're blowing our case!
Larry: Hey, what about the GPL?
Mo: I'll GPL you, wise guy!
Bonk! Ow! Smack! Smack! Smack!
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
SCO is claiming that they don't have to follow the GPL, because they believe it is unconstitutional.
This, at the very least admits that they do not agree with the terms of the license? Right?
Are kernel developers, samba developers and others sending notice of copyright infringment?
... Guys, don't forget that we are talking about IBM here... No one can honestly call them the "little guy"
IBM will surely have first class lawyers, and no matter what you think of the judicial system and judges/politicians only thinking about money and what not, who do you think they would side with? IBM or sco?
I'm betting on IBM.
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms,
My urge to kill goes through the roof with garbage like "the GPL is unamerican". Ya, you knwo what's unhuman? Satanic pigs like the money grubbing neo-con pigs of america like Bill Gates. Choke on your money pig. You will die and rot in hell and burn there for eternirty adn you don't even care... pathetic....
I'm not anti-microsoft. I'm anti-bullshit. Which means I'm anti-microsoft.
If I recall correctly, the argument SCO has made for the GPL being unconstitutional, as sibling poster sort of said, is that it is not restricting what people can do with the copyrighted stuff. In fact, not only is it not restricting what you can do, it's giving you rights! <sarcasm>You're not allowed to give people more rights than what the Constitution says they already have with your stuff! You're only allowed to take away rights!</sarcasm>
At least I think that's their angle.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
Seems to me that out of all of the possible challenges the GPL could face, SCO's legal tactics to date have ranged through many of those possibilities. Their defense posture has changed from one to the next at least 6 or 7 times, possibly more, by now. This is an excellent test for the FSF lawyers, the GPL, the use of Linux as a viable platform(legally, morally, and technically), and anyone who may one day be interested in using the GPL or other free software licenses. ;)
Also, thanks to whomever (M$?) for funding $CO's ability to make this all possible!
--SuperBug
considering how much of their product line is based on software whose license they want to effectively void. Should the GPL be voided, it would seem that they would be distributing Samba, GCC, and other software without a valid license. I think a fair and appropriate response, should the court be dumb enough to agree with SCO on the GPL's validity, would be to sue SCO for distributing software without license to do so.
I'm going waaaay out of line here, but I imagine the slight possibility of SCO playing a double game here.
Microsoft's involvement has been thought of before, but imagine the scenario where both IBM and Microsoft are put against the wall and SCO's only looking for the highest bidder to get bought.
Goes like this: SCO sues IBM for some nonsense involving the GPL. It's quite obvious that IF this goes to court, SCO's gonna loose and that's possibly gonna set a precedent for the GPL in court and be a big bump for Linux on the mainstream press.
Microsoft, being one of the few who would get hurt by Linux growth (maybe the last after Novell integration) would seriously consider buying out SCO to silence it before this FUD causes more good publicity on Linux than it already has.
On the unlikely event of a court win, IBM would probably profit more from buying SCO than from paying all the licences.
In both cases SCO gets bought and for me this looks more likely than just an IBM buy out, since it explains the reason behind the absurd claims: if the press goes towards IBM, Microsoft buys SCO, if the press goes against IBM, it buys SCO itself.
my paranoid and over creative $0.00000002
--
- I wish life was like a *nix variant...
- What for? You wouldn't be r00t!
The Open Group may have to step in to defend the UNIX trademark as the pice at groklaw points out that they are claiming that Linux is an unauthorized workalike to UNIX(TM) however SCO has no standing to make that cliam since it is the open group who controls weather or not an OS is a UNIX(TM).
Now the open group has already stated that the UNIX trademark belongs to them and that they are neutral in matter of SCO v IBM. They have no flavor of Linux certified as a UNIX, so SCO can not arbitrarily assign the UNIX trademark. It sounds to me like the Open Group may have to step in and defend its trademark in court, as if SCO didn't already have to beat up an 800lb gorilla with a spoon.
Did Glenn Beck rape and kill a girl in 1990? gb1990.com
If there is any erm person or group of people you believe are launching frivilous lawsuits in order to mislead investors and pump and dump their stock, the SEC wants to know!!!
Just email your suspicions in this email that is specifically for tips: enforcement@sec.gov
Please do not use this address for general comments or questions.
It is the professional responsibility of legal counsel to present whatever arguments they think might possibly win the case, regardless of whether or not those arguments are legally, ethically, morally, or rationally sound. So the fact that SCO's lawyers are making such screwball claims against the GPL is really just the standard litigation sideshow.
Sir, I agree and I admire your integrity.
I believe you will find that Samba, along with every other open source program, is the IP of SCO, as the Linux kernel contains SCO code. To deny them this would be unconstitutional...
... *tosses out page from legal pad* OK, then how's about this, two licenses walk into a bar, an-
What? You don't believe that?
The GPL is not a EULA. A so-called "End User License Agreement" is some hoax apparently pioneered by Microsoft, which attempts to impose arbitrary restrictions on how people use software. There is no clear legal basis for EULAs to be binding in general.
Software, as a copyrighted work, is governed by the relevant section of copyright law (specifically for software), which restricts making copies of software, but contains no provision (please correct me if I'm wrong) for the copyright holder to impose restrictions on usage. Copyright holders may allow further distribution beyond the one archival backup allowed by law, and they may attach conditions to that further distribution (e.g., GPL-style conditions). But there is no clear way for them to impose any restriction on usage, at least if you've come by the software in a legal way (e.g., purchased a copy).
You'll notice that EULA usually includes clauses forbidding you from copying the software - BUT THIS IS REDUNDANT. You are already forbidden from copying it by copyright law; these clauses are there solely to give the impression of legitimacy and legal force to the rest of the EULA. DO NOT FALL FOR IT.
I urge every person to advocate the view that EULAs are hoaxes. I wish somebody with money would test them by attaching a particularly stupid EULA to their product and suing somebody with the (possibly secret) intent of having the EULA ruled non-binding. I would attempt this with a friend, but I don't know if it is illegal to arrange to be on opposite sides of a court case with a collaborator for the purpose of testing a legal theory. I don't want to be held in contempt or worse!
Well, there are rumors Ray Noorda is basically a vegetable now. It's widely believed Noorda had to give up his chairmanship of Canopy and NFT because senility was setting in. There has been no public comment from him for many years now.
It really is a burning question how Yarro got the position that he did in charge of all the money. Here's some background that is all publicly available.
His father's family is Italian from Naples. The spelling of the name was more traditionally Italian until it was changed when Social Security was introduced.
His mother's side is Russian. His maternal Grandfather was the second generation in the US and became a wealthy developer in California. He built the Huntley House in Santa Monica among many other developments. Yarro worked on his grandfather's projects doing manual labor at times and has commented that it was pretty grueling.
At this point we have to make some guesses about how Yarro became a mormon, and how from this background he became a power broker controlling vast funds amassed by Ray Noorda. Post anything you can learn.
How many times have we seen on TV some amazing feat done by a single individual (for attention, to prove themselves, or just because they are just so damn pationate about the thing)
1: Like that fellow who for years built and maintained a minature model of the Whitehouse, painstakingly crafting every little piece of furniture, paying attention to every last miniscule little detail no matter how un-important. (alas I cannot recall his name right now)
2: Why do people constantly volunteer their efforts to all manner of contribution to society-- sometimes so wild people cannot bear to understand what motivated them. Mount Rushmore, for example comes to mind; surely Gutzon Borglum must have never existed, it's all an illusion, nobody would invest 14 years of their life into something that grand because of mere obession.
3: Have you seen the show on those odd homes? Like the example of the fellow who built a castle from bottles-- crazy yes; amazing, that too.
Some of these contributions to society made by mere individual people boggle the mind with their creativity and the drive it took to make them happen.
Yet, according to SCO and Microsoft none of these monuments and contributions can exist. Yesir, they can't you see, because only people motivated by money or by the threat of being fired if they fail will produce anything worthwhile and meaningful.
Why is it so hard to understand that some very talented and smart people have their own special reason for doing something amazing and giving it away?
Ballmer and company don't get it. The thought of contributing something for Free for the betterment of society is counter-intuitive to them. It's un-american to them.
Yes, according to SCO and Microsoft every person in the history of America who ever did something amazing just for the pleasure of doing it didn't exist because they weren't getting paid for it.
That little retired lady down the streets who spends all hours a day manicuring her garden must be motivated by some manner of return on investment.. surely she isn't doing it for the mere pleasure of it.
Or maybe, just maybe, there is a community of really smart talented people whose main interest is producing something as amazing as Linux just because they are pationate about it.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
If you were selling a car, you'd be putting in buzzwords like turbo, overhead cams, airbag.
If you're trying to sell a legal position (to pump up the stock) then you throw in a whole bunch of legal buzzwords. It does not really matter if it makes sense or not.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I honestly do consider the GPL to be an unenforceable license, and hence, it must be void.
FSF has no central body to orchestrate copyright stuff, as MS does for its massive body of software (the BSA + Microsoft Anti-Piracy), etc.
Plus, I don't think that the "viral" components of it could even hold up under 5 minutes of court scruteny. It seems all too far-fetched for me.
I was a huge supporter of the GPL, until I got more into computing, and support it less now a days. The BSD/Apache/LGPL-style non-viral licenses are more to my liking.
After all, you could put linux on a sony playstation and use it as a missile guidance system.
What makes you think BSD isn't next? If SCO wins this thing, all UNIX derivates or UNIX-like OSes will be their targets.
It's imperative that this be put down for the entire communities sake. The BSD license has many of the elements that SCO is claiming makes the GPL license "invalid". The are of course spouting horse hockey.
Hope this helps you sleep.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
If they win we can all stick are heads between our legs and send money to Redmond. If the polititians and judges are bought off to this extent, then it is the signal that the largest part of the software industry has become a corruptor of human rights and perhaps even the very Constitution which it relies upon for freedom of enterprise.
Voiding the right of lawfull property owners to do as they see fit with their property, even give it away, would be a grave blow to the American Constitution. This blow could become fatal. I cannot believe that a sworn officer of the courts will alow this to happen. SCO, the corporation and proprietary Unix is going to die, soon. A very bleak and blue screen of death.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Perhaps you are wanting to say "look at linux, the product of many that is inherently better." I will respond by asking you to look at Mandrake, SuSe, and Red Hat. All of them are companies, smaller than the ones you hate, but companies nonetheless.
And you hate politics and politicians who have no regard for a small few? Would you like it if they always had regard for the minority? Think about it, there is a minority of people who would like kiddie porn to be legal. There is a minority that would like us to put a military base on the moon. If the minority were represented all the time, no decisions could be effectively made, and if they were, it would only be the minority of those who have power.
Do you dislike your representative? Campaign to have them removed. Do you dislike a certain law that might be passed? Campaign to have it killed. The key is that it is all in your hands. The louder noise you make, the more people will listten. Indeed, for you to be spitting drivel out in any way requires you to make an action to back it up -- something that is unique in our modern world. It's never been brighter because the little guy can raise some hell.
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
If the judge owns SCO stock they have a business involvement in the case, which is immediate cause for a mistrial.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Better than that, if they did enforce their terms on YOU, they would be selectively enforcing them and , and THATS NOT FAIR, THERFORE IT'S VOID BABY, YEA!
So on crack, they are.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Which, upon entering prison, is reversed to become "get screwed and chew".
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
Via the use of a special GPL'ed digital video analizer and through
M.O. comparative analysis, it has been determined that
Darl McBride and Billy Mays are one and the same.
They are both so extremely obnoxious and both make such outlandish claims and
look very much alike that they could only be the same person.
It's doubtful that SCO intends to let this or any of the rest of their idiotic claims get to court.
I would have thought so, too - most of what they've put out so far in the IBM case (and especially in the Red Hat case) has been backpedaling and denying the statements they've made in the public media...
But not this time. This isn't just Stowell mouthing off to some reporter again, this is a document that got filed in court and will be read by an actual judge. I can't imagine what they're thinking.
It's jus too funny.
Nope..
While reading the Groklaw article, I finally figured out what SCO is trying to do with this submission..
They're trying to kill IBM's lawyers!
We've all seen the Monty Python sketch, where the Allies use the world's funniest joke to kill the Axis forces - this is SCO's attempt to do the same thing to IBM's lawyers!
The problem is, of course, that while it is side-splittingly funny, it's not funny enough to cause someone to die laughing.
It seems to me that if SCO has ever distributed a Linux ditro with the offending code in it, then they have given there code away and have no case.
> SCO is dead ... for quite some time.
Now it even smells^H^H^H^H^Htinks badly.
The must have lots of funny mushrooms in Utah for them to come up with this stuff.
Bah.
Boise, Shiller and Flexner, the firm representing SCO, also represented the US government in US vs. Microsoft anti-trust case (which they lost...sort of) and Al Gore for the election crap in Florida (which they also lost...hell, I think we all lost on that one). Supposedly they are one of the best firms in the country, though.
At the firm I work at (relax, I am a systems manager), which is also considered one of the best in the same field, they (coworkers) said that the Boise, etc. is famous for getting huge settlements, so maybe that's what SCO is looking for.
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
Since everyone is just throwing legal opinions around, I declare SCO threats to be legally unenforcable. There. Nya nya nya! Come get me!
This is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. I can't stop watching and it's driving me crazy at the same time. Stop!!!!! Waaaahahahahaaha!
TT
I'll give some insight on that. IBM employees sign an employment agreement that says they not allowed to talk trash about the competition, or any other company.
They can't say bad things about SCO, no matter how much they might want to. Only the lawyers can say terrible but true things about SCO, in a court.
So, don't take IBM's silence as inaction. SCO will be addressed in a court, which is the proper place.
SCO has admitted to violating the copyrights of dozens of companies and hundreds of individuals on content probably worth hundreds of millions of dollars. They are now by far the biggest pirates ever. I think it's time of all of these copyright holders to contact SCO's ISP, xo.net, and demand that SCO's site be pulled down. To do this, you send by fax or paper mail to xo.net an identification of the copyrighted work that you believe has been infringed (specifying the portions that you claim), an identification of the material that you believe to be violating it, contact information for you and for SCO, the statement "I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above on the allegedly infringing web pages is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.", the statement, "I swear, under penalty of purjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.", and your signature. (Assuming that what google requires is what is mandated by law).
I'd enjoy the whole SCO fiasco if SCO spent the time before their case comes to trial shut off the internet for running a warez site.
Loved your post! You're officially a "friend" ;)
(OT: Urge...to...sleep...rising...mumble)
--
"The only clear view is from atop the mountain of our dead selves." - Peter Carroll
Your signature offends me, but truly a great understanding of the ideas of freedom and free software. I suppose I say that because it is so close to my own theory, but I believe it. An elegant reduction of the megabytes of FSF philosophy .
SCO claimed that "secret codes" found in the Bible, Torah and Koran proved that the famed religious texts were in fact a violation of SCO intellectual property. SCO says that all christians, jews and muslims will be able to continue to practice their respective faiths legally for a modest licensing fee of $699 a year.
This is my sig.
This is really scary. As one of the worlds largest proprietary software companies IBM dones not seem the type to defend the GPL well in a court case. A case that will probably set precident. If the GPL looses, IBM has much to gain. They have always acted in a vary stratigic manor. What do you think they will do here?
you see, you're looking at it from the outside in. A lot of managers want this problem over and done with now and they're willing to spend some money to make it happen. the problem with people, you and me included, is that we've been generally conditioned to believe what we've been told. Even if its later proved to be wrong and/or we're told from the source of the info its a lie, we'll still believe it to an extent. SCO did the most important thing in this war over copyrights, they got in the first word. its the verbal version of the preemptive strike. kinda like the whole 'ip theft' binge the RIAA went on earlier.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
It's the reverse of high school. Two F's is good. Two A's are bad.
paintball
... their illogical behavior, tending towards the self-destructive, and their obviously impaired perception as evidenced by conflicting claims, supported by assertions later self-refuted, would be sufficient to get them labeled as incompetent to defend themselves. A psychiatric evaluation would probably result in a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. If corporations are to be considered as artificial entities, why isn't the public at large (including other artificial entities) afforded protection from them, as they would be from an obviously psychotic individual? This isn't an issue of intellectual property protection, it's a cry for help. My money says SCO wants Uncle IBM to forgive their tantrum and take them in, because they can't take care of themselves.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
"The BA is one of the most interesting and philosophically challenging degrees one can take. "
The BA is identical to the BS except there is less emphasis on math and science. Please don't try to pull any BS (ha ha) on us with this fluffy-talk.
Now if you want to say "Liberal Arts", then I'm right there with you... I think a good liberal arts degree should be considered by employers for more positions, but unfortunately today we think of our universities as trade schools.
And yes, I have a BS degree.
For godsakes....can we quit with all the stupid "SCO makes yet another stupid claim" stories? Can we do exactly what they DONT want and ignore them? Every time I turn around there is another story about SCO...make it stop! PLEASE for the love of all things right in the world.
======== In the future, everything will be artificial. ========
"free-as-in-beer"
People say this but I don't understand what they're saying.
Do you really mean:
"free-as-in-air"
?
Or:
"I-wish-beer-was-free"
In which case it doesn't make sense.
Either way, it seems uh... stupid.
And yes, I support GPL. But this statement is just stupid.
IANAL etc, etc.
SCO is claiming they own the intellectual property of foreign nationals. Yes, the intellectual property is shared freely, and even allowed to be improved upon by others BUT it is still the intellectual property of a foreign national.
Just because you haven't purchased a US copyright, or filed a trademark doesn't mean you aren't entitled to the rights thereof. Patent suits are often between two competing companies (who both think they own the same IP) but at times someone who can show proper evidence of Prior Art can demonstrate validity of the supposed copyright/trademark/patent.
However, the LETTER of the law OFTEN outweighs the SPIRIT of the law in our litigious society. SCO is trying to invalidate the GPL, and insodoing invalidate the copyrights of the creators of the intellectual property.
SCO has no ground whatsoever regarding the true ownership of Linux. Sure, some ancient possibly proprietary (most likely public domain) source is in Linux. As soon as the information is presented in court, the community will start writing patches. It's worthless for them to even disclose the code.
What isn't worthless, is disputing the entire GPL, making the Linux codebase a free for all, and bringing hundreds of thousands of man hours into disputed ownership.
Now, if this black helicopter theory holds any water, then Microsoft (who has openly backed this) stands to gain a lot. Imagine all the endless applications THEY would have access to port directly to the Windows Operating System with that kind of legal precedent.
The only thing preventing them from doing that, is COPYRIGHT law. Who woulda thought, the giant stick they're trying to beat the GPL with, could be their undoing. Who knows.
END OF RANT
Considering that the GPL and the GNU project rely on and affirm the protections of copyright, this seems like a strange argument to pursue.
Concidering SCO is trying to get money off their "copyrighted" code, this is a strange argument for them to persue.
Watch for Darl McLied and is cronies to sell up and move to Florida. They can serve their time in prison but any real estate in Florida can't be touched.
(Note, this MAY or MAY NOT be true. I will not be held accountable for any of this.)
THE NEWS, ACCORDING TO ME:
SCO ON CRACK:
I think it is pretty safe to assume that SCO is on crack. Here's why:
They released their code under an license, which they are now declaring as nul. Therefore, they are saying all people in possesion of their GPL'ed software have obtained it illegaly, since they have made copies without express written permission, aren't they?
IN OTHER NEWS:
SCO has claimed copyright on every second page in the bible, but don't worry, church-goers can license SCO's half of the bible for a modest fee of -- $699!
IN OTHER, OTHER NEWS:
The retards that tried to get everyone's ISPs to pay to license 'hyperlinks' from them, have been hired as SCO's lawyers!
Would SCO have to show the infringing code if individuals running Linux took them to small claims court over the licensing fee they are demanding? That is, as covered by the Fair Debt Collecting Act?
...the difference is that what programmers earn from comrades is respect and prestige. The Greek word Timae (tee-may) works out best, it's a combo of reputation, prestige, respect, influence, and authority (if only over your section of code). Most businessmen in our regulated capitalist economy understand only the hard currency exchange for goods and services rendered, despite their participation in this non-monetary system as well. Just as programmers get timae for doing kick-ass job on their coding work, CEOs and upper echelon folks get timae for pulling off difficult or nigh-impossible tasks like, say, pulling SCO out of the fire. For example, what company isn't going to look at hiring McBride if he heads up SCO should it somehow win the lawsuit?
My point is that regardless of the work, someone is getting something they think is worthwhile out of it. For Communists it was ideological satisfaction (peacetime/reputation; the best factory on the list got little extras to incite higher production) or survival (war), in most Capitalist societies it is satisfaction (luxuries/goods; money buys nice things) or survival (from starvation), in the case of Freeware Programmers who seek neither cash nor survival it is for the rewards of reputation and satisfaction. Any way you slice the pie you get something of value for your work, just not necessarily cold, hard, American cash.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
"The project will fork, and leave the hands of the maintainer, if the maintainer does not do everything he can to promote it being the best program possible."
Not quite. It's more "I have this code that is the best at scratching my itch. I will share it with you, because it costs me little, to nothing to do so". The merit of the code is determined by one's peers. Not because the maintainer has "marketed" the code to them properly.
Lawyers and "IMNAL"'s out there:
Why haven't we heard from SCO that Linux is
an outright theft of copyrighted material,
just as (it was claimed) The Wind Done Gone
was an outright ripoff of Gone with the Wind?
This would seem to me to be an interesting and
possibly strong claim. At least not idiotic,
like everything we have heard from them so far.
One way for Linux to defeat such a claim would
be for Linux to be changed to clearly parody
the existing SCO unix offering.
Therefore, I suggest that Linus start adding
code to the kernel so that, under control of
a boot time switch, Linux 2.6P prints out
amusing taunts whenever Linux does something
which SCO Unix cannot.
To further bolster the claim that Linux is a
parody, the kernel needs to make irrational
legal claims from time to time, perhaps when
it detects that noone is looking at it.
Why don't end users sue SCO for making unsubstantiated claims? If 50 people in each state file on the same day it would send a message to SCO that they would have to respond to...
Right?
and all it has to say is-
;)
IBM: We move that SCOs lawsuit against us be dismissed on the basis that SCO is clearly on crack.
I mean, this used to be funny, then it got sad, then SCO got really insane and pathetic, and now, well I'm not sure where they are now. I mean, how much deeper can they go beyond this pittiful insanity?
I have to admit though, I fall off my chair laughing so hard it actually hurts every time I read about SCO's new antics, it literally kills me, so for the pure comedic value it's worth its weight in gold! But it's gotta stop someday.
I mean, how much more insane can they get? I know!
SCO will issue a press release saying that the earth is in fact a derivitive work of Unix, and therefore the planet belongs to them, and we must all pay a licensing fee to SCO to continue living on it! yah thats it! (omfg!)
this has gone so far beyond a response like "DOH!" (heck, that's what I said the first time they posted a press release). It's just... I dunno, someone come up with a decent word that describes sadness to this depth! please!
ps-no I cant spell, so sue me
I believe the phrase you're looking for is:
"The scientific method"
It's the exact same process that's been going on between mathematicians, physicists, astronomers, scholars and all types of professional scientists for centuries or possibly even millenia. Realising that they can get so much more done if they work together with their peers - rather than competing with them. The fruits of non-profit colaborative research then making it into the public domain (or being taught to others) have enriched society and have enabled us to jump forward as a civilisation.
And now it's happening again in the world of computer science. With open-source software, and on a scale that no scientific / engineering project has ever seen before.
So stop recompiling your kernel every other day, or constantly worrying about whether your code is being infected by the GPL viral license, and break free of the hobbyist OS community that is holding you back. It's time to graduate to adult computing, it's time to buy Apple. Think better, think different, think Apple.
the RIAA declares listening to cds purchased at your local retailer to be un-constitutional. since the constitution is not being enforced, it is null and void.
Don't waste time... procrastinate now!
Your AK-47 comment doesn't stand up, because that assumes that you're going to have a bunch of Iraqis individually defending their homeland. In reality, you're much more likely to see them welcoming in anybody who can get rid of Saddam Hussein.
I wonder how the Linux business of SCO is doing then? IMHO it must be barried then, and all profit SCO has got from Linux in the past must be considered as illegally earned money. SCO, as a company, must be just shut down immidiately, while all its IP property (including original Unix source code) must become a public domain.
Seems to me they don'e leave the judge any other choice.
Less is more !
Hm. I phrased that sentence unclearly. "Promote" was meant in the "To contribute to the progress or growth of" sense not the "To advocate" sense. A better way of putting the sentence would have been "The project will fork, and leave the hands of the maintainer, if the maintainer does not everything he can to work toward the program being the best possible."..
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Think fat jizzy dicks poking in your face.
John Terpstra, a former Caledera (now SCO) VP, will be speaking at SCALE. He will be giving 2 talks. The first will be about SAMBA-3 and Active Directory support. The second talk will be about relations between open-source and proprietary software.
I guess it's a contract that says, the copyright holder promises not to sue you for infringement if you do XYZ?
Aren't permissive licenses treated differently than contracts?
5% at $17 per share is a lot more than 5% at $1.83 per share.
The execs already made several million dollars *personally* by stock sales, of what was practically worthless stock prior to the law suit.
Canopy and friends have made even more.
Recursion of free speech is shut the f.. up I am caught in a copywritten algorythm that does recursive post reference. I think I will go have a cigarette. SCO is getting funnier by the minuite.
I once did see Dog, while I was on acid. Cut it out guys I'm dyslexic...I might be having a flash back, or maybe it's a slashback-backslash.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
http://www.anerispress.com/wltsim/
I may not be a Lawyer, but I have had several survey classes on Common (ie Anglo-Saxon, ie US & UK) Law Vs. Civil Law (like in Germany) especially regaurding technology issues including copyright laws and the EU.
The GPL needs to have this court case, because if the thing is shot down, it will put a serious damper on development in the Opensource community if not kill it.
As a technology consultant, this legal issue has stopped two of my larger clients, that actually have open-minded CIO's, from rejecting linux in favour of SUN because of these legal issues. While the risk is low, its enough for already embattled IT departments not to risk it when they know that with M$ or SUN they will not have these issues.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
It sounds like the GPL is going to get an airing in court. IBM and most of the other big firms with a stake in Linux probably want that because the GPL is the cornerstone on which Linux was built.
And how nice that SCO is being an obvious pack of assholes about the whole thing. This puts the defenders of the GPL in a much better situation than if they had been reasonable.
You'll recall how, when the Forces of Law'nOrder try to set a precedent confirming the enforcability of some new law (especially if it's constitutionality is questionable), they'll go after the worst scumbag they can find first. (Like going after child pornographers when trying out the latest restriction on the free press.) Once they get the precedent set, they can then use it to club anybody else who publishes something they don't like.
SCO, by taking on the entire world and insulting the intelligence of the judges who will be handling the case with a stack of obviously bogus claims, has voluntarily put itself in a position with respect to the GPL of the child pornographer picked by a prosecutor to try out a new censorship law. VERY convenient for the GPL side.
This reminds me of a saying from the heyday of usenet news political discussion/debate groups. Often there would be a regular poster on one side who would trot out every tired, repeatedly disproved, position of that side of the argument. He could never be convinced to change his position. But he'd make a DANDY foil for presenting the counter-arguments, for the edification of thousands of neo-lurkers who hadn't yet heard them. Then, a few weeks later, once a new crop of newbies had gathered and/or another news item made the subject front-page once more, he'd rehash them AGAIN. How convenient!
After a few iterations some of the posters would get bored or annoyed with him and start asking how he could be discouraged (or kicked off, if the group was moderated). Then the old hands would point out how CONVENIENT it was to have someone from the "other side" to periodically hoist the strawmen and give the rest of us an opportunity for a bonfire.
SO convenient, that it would often be said that "If [whomever] didn't exist we'd have to invent him.", i.e. we'd have to plant a shill in the crowd to do the same function (but less believably, because someone who actually believes the opposite position won't get the rhetoric quite right.)
Of course you'd never know if [whomever] actually WAS a shill - a particularly convincing one. (And that uncertainty also helped. It implied that if he WAS a shill, he'd only be raising arguments that were defective. So simply by raising one of "his side's" arguments he discredited it. B-)
SCO has been so PERFECT in this role that the old saw applies.
If the GPL can't handle a legal challenge, it's better to find that out sooner rather than later.
SCo has been so perfect for our side that it's almost enough to make you wonder if SCO *IS* a shill.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I want a refund for the Louisiana Purchase, while we're at it. ...
Oh, the reciept? *pats pockets* Let's not get bogged down in trifling details...
Just don't look, just don't look.
How we know is more important than what we know.
If the GPL is ruled invalid, why would companies only then steal the code? The code is still owned by the copyright holder. All the GPL does is pass on extra permissions to copy. Without the GPL to allow copying, no copying is valid except by the copyright holder.
Why the dickens would thieves wait to steal?
As for the chances of the GPL being ruled invalid, for what cause? It does not remove permissions, it only adds permissions. If it is ruled that it violates the copyright clause of the constitution because it expands on said clause, then every license does, including every EULA out there. You think Microsoft wants that?
Infuriate left and right
As soon as GPL holders start suing SCOX for copyright infringement (based on SCOXs argument that it's invalid), SCOX can then say 'hah - the GPL's invalid nyah nyah'
Kinda like the chicken-and-egg thing.
"I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
Is that a threat or a promise, altar-boy?
Ahahahaha! It sounds like the SCO version of 'All Your Base' :)
And again they take full advantage of GPL'd projects like SAMBA 3 (that's how they get their much-touted AD support), GCC and others, and yet slam it for everything else. To anyone else out there 'borrowing' GPL'd BSD code - it's piracy, but for them, hey, it's part of the UnixWare Experience (R)
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Your argument is laughable. Nothing has been proven yet. Just because someone has challenged it, doesn't make it invalid. :)
:)
BTW, FreeBSD, which Apple used heavily in revamping the BSD layer of Mach for Mac OS X, is under the BSD license which has many of the same provisions that SCO is arguing make the GPL invalid.
Better hope they loose, huh?
Moron.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
It's OxyClean! The STAIN SPECIALIST!
You know what?
:P
I've decided that it's not just the scumbags at SCO that practice this deceit. It's also the lawyers and stock brokers looking to get in on the action.
These 'investment advisors' know damn well SCO doesn't stand a chance, but they also know that SCO is corrupt to the bones and they understand the kind of game they're playing.
Once again, the clueless investors, SCO's 'partners', their employees, and customers will be screwed in the end. I've seen this before and it's not pretty.
I agree with you - I wish there was some way to "draw the line HERE" and "make them PAY for what they have done!" But alas, it probably won't happen.
My apologies for the Star Trek slip - I'll try not to let it happen again.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
The GPL is unconstutional? WTF. That is some good crack I guess.
Eventually some unbalanced person will flip out I fear and put the hurt on one of these bozos. I hope that have all final details settled and policies paid up. Just in case.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
Than I suspect Darl and Co will get jail-time.
Someone should have warned them about this.
GPL=void.
Samba=no longer able to be distributed.
SCO sells Samba as part of Unixware.
Willful infringement for the purpose of commercial/finanical gain.
Felony charges. Minimum 3 years in prison.
Generally, I believe that the amount of prison time is proportional to the distribution. In SCO's case, it is going to be pretty damn big.
And, you know, depending on why the GPL is declared invalid (not that I think it will be, infact, I'm pretty damn sure it won't) one of two things may occur:
a)GPL won't actually be found invalid, instead, SCO's crazy ass-ed interpretation of the GPL will force them into some kind of bind where they will be inviolation of it, and loose the right to distribute under it
b)It will be found invalid in some tiny and specific way, and only the current revision of the GPL. GPL v4 will come out quickly, fix whatever error existed, and the opensource world will have a hell of a time moving everyting over to it. Or even better, it will only be found inapplicable to the linux kernel for some crazy reason, in which GPL v3.x for linux will be released, fixing the problem.
If either of these occur, or the GPL is just plain busted, SCO execs will go to jail and owe huge fines.
Not that it is much consolation--->It would really suck if the GPL was crushed. But it would feel good that the people who did it were screwed in the end anyways.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
I have a better name for this policy: Scorched Earth.
Anyone in this discussion watch the sci-fi show Babylon 5? Remember the episode when Sheridan's forces are closing in on Earth, toppling the reign of terror the Earth president? His last action against the freedom fighters was not to fight to the last man, but to practice a literal scorched earth policy by turning the planet's defensive particle beam weapons on the Earth itself.
I am reminded of that scene every time SCO comes out with shit like this. For some time I have been of the belief that perhaps McBride really does think he is in the right (not that *I* believe he is, mind you). Now, I have to wonder if he really knows that he blew it, and is making the case so cloudy and so complicated that it has a chance of bringing others down with him.
What really started to convince me of this was his comments about the GPL violating the constitution. Take away that statement, and everything else that SCO said about the GPL could be applied if the words "in this case" were added (i.e. if IBM really were guilty of adding SCO's IP into Linux, the GPL would indeed be invalid in this case; even the FSF acknowledges that the code has to be given willingly and knowingly).
In B5, the president's plan did not succeed and he died in the effort. One wonders if something similar will happen in the SCO case.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
This is just a guess, but...
Obviously, SCO wants to get the GPL ruled invalid. Why? Well, I'd bet that they would then assert that any work distributed under it is fair game to be used and modified, with derivative works belonging to the person or company who modified them, and that person then gets to determine how they are licensed.
Let's assume that they succeed in having software released under the GPL treated in this way. Now, we move on to the next step.
Next, SCO takes the Linux kernel, modifies it, then closes the source on the modified kernel and declares it commercial software. Now, they have created a completely closed, completely commercial version of Linux that they begin to sell. Big deal, you say, you just fork off from the last freely-available version of the kernel. Ah, but you see, there's the matter of the infringing SCO code. If SCO gets its way, that last kernel, the one just before SCO's closed kernel, will cost you $699 to use, more if SCO goes through with doubling its license fees. And since SCO claims its infringing code cannot be removed from the kernel, you can never touch it without paying that fee.
So, to use the model we've all become familiar with...
1. Get a court to find infringing code.
2. Declare GPL invalid.
3. Make kernel too expensive to use.
4. Create commercial kernel.
5. Seize total control of Linux.
6. Profit.
Spent all weekend only to get it wrong. This is almost as bad as someone who fails his whole life, then fails at suicide.
All your UNIX *are* belong to us!
8th Affirmative Defense - The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution
HAHAHAHAHA so they are telling me under American law it is against the law to share!?
I ate your fish.
After all, the stockholders are the real problem. If they'd stop raising the price and rewarding this rediculous behaviour SCO would just go away.
Wrong.
It isn't that simple. The GPL isn't just permission -- it's a contract (whereby you agree to permit the use of your work if the user agrees to let others use hers).
Often, in contract disputes, one of the parties loses his or her otherwise protected property rights. So, let's say I agree to sell you a car, but only if you agree to do something illegal (like, mule some dope across the border)... I sell you the car, but you don't hold up your end--a court may decide that you can keep the car since the contract was invalid prima facie.
The GPL could be invalided in this way, and the result could be that people using GPL'd software can continue to do so despite the objections of the copyright holders. It's not as crazy as it sounds. Estoppel is a contract law concept, and it is particularly apropos here. If SCO prevails, it will mean grave things for contributors to free software.
Just because you think SCO is ridiculous, doesn't mean you can afford to ignore what are, in fact, valid legal arguments.
Let's assume Bill Gates wants to challenge the GPL because Microsoft, as usual, doesn't want any competition. If Microsoft issues a product that violates the GPL and then challenges the GPL, Bill's and Microsoft's dollars are on the line if the GPL turns out to be valid.
Bill & Company come up with an alternative: find a proxy (SCO) who has an interest in taking down Linux and have them go out on a limb by arguing that the GPL is invalid. If they win they lose because this leaves SCO distributing their versions of Linux and open source add-ins to Unixware without a license and if the lose they lose because they've just gotten major egg on their face plus possibly punitive damages. Ah, but the main players (SCO senior management) can do a pump and dump with their stock while the court battle plays out so the only real losers are SCO shareholders left holding some wallpaper at the end of the game.
Bill & Company spend some portion of the $50M that SCO gets to keep the lawsuit going but they have the potential to take back the hundreds of millions that Linux is now costing them in competition. If SCO loses, the worst thing Bill & Company get out of it is a lot of companies who are currently being hesitant about deploying Linux (gee, I wonder what they'll buy instead). Chances are, Microsoft couldn't have caused this much damage to Linux growth if they'd put their $50M into an advertising campaign.
This is a win-win for Bill, a win-win for the SCO senior management team and the only big loser is anyone dumb enough to buy SCO stock now or to have bought it since the suit was filed. I don't feel too sorry for these people since they either know about the suit and are betting against Linux/Open Source or they don't know about the suit in which case they're simply stupid and invested in a company they knew nothing about. Oh yeah, Linux loses to some extent since most people don't follow the news and will just remeber that there was something fishy about Linux.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
That must be David Boise's brother? Is he somehow involved with the case?
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Some googling including "2003" will give you that Mr Terpstra is the former SCO evangelist. So all who go to heckle might want to know who is talking and where he stands at the moment. Thanks, Gerard
Not to mention that the GPL also violates the geneva convention, the declaration of human rights, the magna charta, the codex hammurabi, the ten commandments and CowboyNeal.
Free as in mason.
Well, go to the page http://www.sco.com/products/ and try the link Intellectual Property Home Page at the bottom right and you'll be greeted with a Document Not Found
So clearly, since SCO as per its own saying have no documents containing IP, there is no case!
Can we all please go back to sleep now?
Peder
Who's a good developer!
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
I think the supreme court might disagree with you.
From Larry Lessig's blog:
What are they, on crack????!?!!?!?!? ROFL!!!!
It wouldn't surprise me if M$ bought stock in SCO and that they are (indirectly) funding all this crap. It's probably just a way to slow down the acceptance of linux in business using a divide and conquer tactic. Btw, I'm starting to wonder what the legal system in America is like. After all, the claims of SCO are written down by lawyers who think they have a case. Don't they have anything better to do?
#1 read slashdot
#2 misappropriate slashdot-style business plan
#3 format incorrectly
#4 ??????
#5 get modded up!!!!
You are an idiot, people like you should be kept away from /.
I know, i know - IHBT IHL IHAND
my sig could kick your sig's arse...
That or they are trying to pull a monkey out of their arse. I don't know exactly which.
GPL unenforceable? I can't think of a single reason why.
If SCO released a Linux Distribution or Kernel (along with the source code and a copy of the GPL) then that constitutes acceptance of the licensing agreement. Now let's just imagine for a minute that IBM had put some UNIX sourcecode into Linux. If SCO then released said code under GPL license then said code has now been GPL'd would it not be? After all, they had the sourcecode... it would have been there for them to see, to find, to object to?
Now that SCO has realized such a scenario, they are now turning their guns on the GPL in an attempt to have it invalidated? I think something like this was tried in the past with BSD was it not? As far as I remember, that attempt failed.
Furthermore, as in the BSD case previously with AT&T, I seem to remember reading that much of the original UNIX core code was derived from early efforts in open source by BSD folks. I figure that more BSD code (not less) has found it's way into the UNIX codebase since then AND probably alot of LINUX GPL code too. Wouldn't THAT be a surprising turnaround? With GPL code in the UNIX codebase then the UNIX codebase (or much of it) would then be GPL'd.
Methinks this is gonna be an interesting little war and a devastating defeat for SCO.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
If unequal application of the GPL means the GPL is invalid, would this not mean that any EULA or other license that is not equally enforced is invalid as well?
I'm thinking MS, SCO, etc. here.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
I don't think I've ever had such a great momment of zen in my life.
Thank you, Mr. Slashdot troll. Thank you, HeX86. You made my day. =)
Folks, I am a little paranoid even at the best of time but: 1. do you think SCO's lawyers are stocking up on ammo/testing the waters by reading /.'s comments?
2. we can dream about suing Darl & co. but if these "exec" are smart i think they would have already distanced themselves and their cash. By the time judges freeze asstes they would have already been moved offshore. They only thing they may get is time in jail, as we know white collar crime is not not punished the same way as blue collar crime.
Follow the money.
There is only One Company in the whole world the SCO lawsuit helps. Hint: It isn't SCO. Arguing about the minutiae of SCO's claims misses the point. SCO is noting but a tool. The real question is how far will the One Company go?
Why did SCO get 50 million bucks in new investment? Does anyone think SCO will ever sell anything again? Everyone that would ever buy their kind of product hates them. They needed the money to pay lawyers. They also need to pay big salaries to the people at SCO who will be poison in the industry. Would you hire any of them? If you can buy Senators and the Justice Department you can certainly buy the little piss-ants at SCO. It isn't called bribery it's called investment.
As an example of what money can do; Why do you think the DMCA was passed? Because the Senators and Congressmen care so much about intellectual property rights that they made criminals of 100 million Americans? No they were paid by the RIAA. It isn't called bribery it's called campaign contributions.
The One Company must be quaking. Everyday it seems major governments are supporting open-source projects and products. Everyday it seems new announcements are made of products moving away from the One Companies products to open-source. Today the Army's Land Warrior project announced that they are moving to Linux. A better product CAN win and is winning. The One Company will lose on a fair playing field. But don't expect a fair playing field. They will buy whoever it takes to keep what they have. It isn't called bribery it's called influencing the public debate.
Start prophesy:
IBM lawyers will dig out the connection between the One Company and SCO and it will turn out to be even more disgusting than you can imagine.
Several Senators will introduce a bill that subtly or not so subtly attacks the GPL while ostensibly propping up American intellectual property rights.
Since neither Bush nor the Democratic candidates understand, or care for that matter, about open-source any bill the One Company cares to have passed will be signed into law.
Only Americans will get screwed. The rest of the world will tell the One Company to get stuffed.
End prophesy
Did you think it would ever get to the point where the RIAA would sue 12 year old girls? How far will the One Company go? From their past history there any limit?
I'm not sure how this works in the US legal system, but this document that SCO has produced is a legal document. That means it's a statement of fact in court as seen by SCO. While this might be a standard way of doing things i.e. throwing every available answer at the opposition so that those defenses are not nullified by ommission, it also is a very good vehicle for anyone who contributed to the Linux kernel to warn SCO that they (the contributors) intend to sue SCO for abuse of copyright as SCO clearly states that it distributed GPL software in full knowledge that they did not accept the copyrights of those authors since SCO claims that the GPL is invalid. This suit would work whether or not the GPL is invalidated.
All it would take is for Linus, Cox, Marcelo and the hundreds of others who contributed to warn of an intention to use AND GO TO THE PRESS WITH THIS ARGUMENT. Even the shitrag IT press such as CNet would understand such a legal threat and it would cause a major drop in SCO's stock value. Repeated a number of times by other developers, such as those of Samba, it would make SCO effectivily worthless by the time this trial gets going.
The sad thing is, that while many talk about class action lawsuits, it is almost wholly hot air and will never materialise, since talk is cheap and action requires effort.
i cant believe everyone is missing the biggest joke of all of it. If the gpl gets declared invalid all opensource licenses are then. I doubt all these companies and universities who use opensource licenses would want that. While everyone is always so apt to point out that apple uses bsd. Dont forget that MS uses alot of bsd code themselves in several products which if SCO wins means they are unable to use that code. I highly doubt even MS would want that to happen(if they realized this would be the end result of the gpl being declared invalid) so ironically so MS has no choice but to support the gpl's viability for this case or else MS loses. And quite honestly so does lots of companies, universities and even the government. I really think SCO has done more than bite off more than it can chew.
It is incredible to me the amount of Marxist invective posted to this forum which get rated insightful.
Dawn of the Dead
If this doesnt cound as redistributing Linux, I'm not sure what does...
One thing I want to know is what the so called SCO Partners, like Conectiva and SuSE (the whole Unitedlinux shebang) is going to do about it.
Conectiva, at least, has issues a very vague stated saying they don't agree with SCO. But they are still working with them.
I'm sure there are many other companies that say they support the Linux comunity and the GPL, and are still working with SCO. Is that supposed to mean something ?
morcego
You see, the "powers that be" have done a good job of engineering apathy through manufactured pop music and TV. Combine this with the fact that freedom and prosperity is being eroded gradually, the change is never painful enough to make the Great Unwashed sit up and take notice. People are quite happy living in their comfortable little conformist dream-lands. It has always been thus, and always will be. Let those that have insight be free. Let those that are ignorant remain safe in their bliss.
Stick Men
Surely if the GPL was void, wouldn't microsoft already have proven that by now??
(and I think that even IBM wouldn't have respected the GPL if it was void)
about all the SCO fuzz: SCO is dying and they(Darl et al.) know it. They just want to get as much money out of it as they can, so they're hoping to settle with IBM for some millions(a real bargain compaired to the 3 billion they're claiming). In addition all the media attention pushes up the stock prizes.
I say: just stop listening to this crazy SCO-fud, don't even mention it on slashdot. A complete media silence would be perfect.
Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein
I would like to recommend a book to SCO about the void - The Book of Nothing by J.D. Barlow.
you may find the Higgs in this signature.
In a similar way I don't believe any other projects in the majority are "just for fun". They are all a mutual pooling of resources where people know if they provide this they encourage others and in the end every one wins with high quality products for a lot less effort.
At risk of needing asbestos pants... It reminds me (I'm not a regular bible reader and not part of any organised religion) of the feeding of the 5000. It's a principle used by Jesus. Wonder if he would be a Free Software developer if he were born now?
Who ever says we are naturally selfish misses that we are also smart enough to recognise that something that benefits many can benefit us more than not participating. In fact the reward of contributing to Free Software might have a better risk:benefit ratio than the gamble of hogging your development but being unable to capitalise on it, especially with how easily large corporations can wrest your control form you (despite the protection of patents - tongue firmly in cheek with that last comment.
I used to wonder why Communism was so attractive and caught on so well in Europe. Then I realised that all the Communists were first brought up as Christians and that Christianity is so damn close to Communism it isn't funny ... especially the system of Monasteries that flourished and still flourish in Europe. Think of it this way Marx was essentially saying: "hey what if all of society was run like a monastery but without having to go to mass on sundays ?" Because monasteries DO work and have done so for 1500 years. However, a nation is not a monastery ... funny that Marx never noticed that obvious difference. Then again maybe I've just been smoking too much SCO brand crack or something.
Bitter and proud of it.
Back in the day, the British had really uncomfortable shirts with buttons on their cuffs. What the founding fathers really wanted was the right to bare arms.
forgive my innocence, but when exactly was constantinople communist? the way i understand it, last time it was a christian city communism as a concept was still several centuries away
;)
and as for it being 'idelic' (sic), you must have been reading different history books to me - or is your emperor(s) being murdered twice a year your idea of heaven?
come to think of it...
manages to so consistantly make fundamentally incorrect statements about basic legal axioms. Who, if anyone, is providing their legal advice ?
Capitalism is not the force that will 'correct' the power of OSS. The power is inherent in the model itself.
-P
-- James Dornan
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
Where do I sign up?
SCO attack the GPL yet again when it actually has nothing to do with what they are alleging.
This just shows that SCO is being funded by other sources. Guess what those sources are.
Isn't it funny that Microsoft, IDC, Gartner and SCO have used exactly the same language about the GPL? Word for word sometimes.
SCO fakes arms
against Blue sea of troubles
lawyer cum hits face
The court fillings also disputed IBM's claims that SCO had violated IBM's software patents. "If we're in violation of them, then just about every other vendor in the entire software industry is in violation of them," SCO's Stowell said in an interview. "What they're claiming is something that is a common practice within the software industry."
Dear SCO,
So?
Yours, IBM
In a test of the new Linux-based Land Warrior technology, the US Army today executed a lightning raid on SCO's headquarters.
GPL THIS! One sergeant was heard to scream, as his bullets tore through layer after layer of legal paperwork, not being stopped until hitting Darl McBride's cold steel heart.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
The capitalist mindset is designed, at the very core, with the sole end goal of making a bunch of money.
This is non-argument. There is no meaningful thing as a "capitalist mindset" or its "design," you are just playing with words, and you aren't being reasonable or fair about it. You don't provide serious support for your proposition that anything is "designed" to be X, what you are saying, really, is that each is "defined" to be X, and then draw your conclusions from your definitions. So what?
What if the open source software mindset were designed to provide and obtain free-for-beer software, and the good stuff were merely incidental? This is all just demagoguery, and proves nothing.
Open source has provided some of the ugliest, grotiest code i have ever seen in a production environment; and, it has also provided some of the best. The same can be said of commercial code. Similar forces operate in each "market" to permit better product to rise to the top in their own way, and to provide incentives to improve. But this has nothing to do with corresponding "mindsets" or the demagoguery of each mindset's corresponding advocates.
No argument was made here -- just a definition parsed and rehashed. It is fluffy, weak-minded, non-argument like this that marginalizes open source developers and makes it difficult for us to get traction in the real world.
Some of us produce quality code, some of us suck. Some of our works are worthy of a song, and some are worthy of a rasberry. None of this has to do with mindset. It is not because some of us "get it" and others do not. It is because some of us can code, and some of us can not. Same with commercial software.
I confidently predict this will never actually reach court. SCO haven't a leg to stand on, and they know it. It's no use to Microsoft having the GPL formally validated in a courtroom - they need long term FUD. So the case will get pulled in a month or two...and then in three months time another stalking horse against Linux and the GPL will miraculously appear to continue the FUD...
You sound like a bigot. Replace "Old white men" with any of your favourite derogitory words and you would sound essentially the same. There are alot of non-"OWM" who would jump at the chance to screw over their fellow man.
The basic problem? Instead of taking responsability for their circumstances, the American underclass attempts to santify otherwise bad behaviour. When "OWM" is shouted from the desktop, nobody seems to be offended, but if they choose a different phrase, watch out! Unless you know a particular "OWM" before you judge him, you are prejudging him, and last time I checked perjudice and bigotry are synonyms.
There is a cardinal rule of society which has withstood the test of time:
If you think small you will always be small.
Fast machines, powerfull AI, impulsive invention,... All I lack is a good espresso machine!
you say opinon i say eyewitness.
some people belive in justice. and for them, it's not what's the worst case senario, it's WHAT'S FUCKING RIGHT YOU ASSHAT.
yours is the WORST kind of logic, the logic of lawyers and bean counters. YOU are destroying alot of my fav. things at once. not just GPL, but music, movies....
the SOLUTION is to kill the lawmakers, lawyers and politicians. and ANYONE ELSE who can't give a STRAIGHT answer.
hypothetically after SCO collects the billions from IBM, don't the copyright holders of the linux source code who contributed their code to linux under GPL have the right to sue SCO for illegally distributing their code in the caldera distribution? i think this point has been brought up before.
IANAL
andrew
Why did I lurk so long before registering for a Slashdot account? I could have had a Slashdot ID of less than 100000.
I can hear SCO's next arguments in my head
"The Free Software Foundation eats children!"
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
The site www.sco.com is running Apache on Linux.
Sorry I just find that rediculously funny.
Good is never enough, when you dream of being great!
As far as I can tell (and I may well be wrong).. so far all we've seen is plenty of posturing and plenty of claims and counter claims.. At what point will this appear in court? When will judges be looking at it? When will we see a verdict? THis bores me witless and I want it to be over.
This goes against a couple centuries of copyright law interpretation which is firmly *against* entry of any copyrighted work into the public domain without the express indication thereof by its author.
What about the AT&T / BSD case? It used to be that if you distributed your own work widely enough without any attached copyright notice, then you were effectively putting it in the public domain and couldn't take that back later. Everything up to Unix 32V is probably in that state.
Granted, this doesn't apply to Linux, which was created after that rule changed and which has always been distributed with an attached license and loads of copyright statements... but perhaps SCO is angry at discovering (from the analysis of their ignorant slide show) how much of their "valuable IP" is actually public domain and they want to try and retaliate in kind?
When you roll the wheel on your mouse, It changes the moderation form selections from what you selected! Now I have to post to undo my moderations.
It's still in this one (and a bunch of their other update directories), though. Not only that, but the file creation dates on some of these postdate the beginning of their attacks on IBM, and include patches from Caldera/SCO engineers.
Seriously folks (especially you with the mod points to waste on the parent (Insightful? In what way exactly?)), the constant "Stop with the SCO" is getting aggravating.
Ok, so you don't want to read about the largest currently running legal threat to various aspects of geek life. Guess what? No-ones forcing you to! Read "SCO" in the headline and skip on down to the next story if you so desire.
In the meantime those of us that are actually quite interested (and/or worried) about where all this will eventually end up
(as opposed to debating the treatment of recordings of game screens as movies or the use of flat screen tv's as picture frames (cool, but overpriced))
can continue to appreciate as much info on real world/relevant nerd news as we can get.
kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
SCO said: The General Public License ('GPL') is unenforceable, void and/or voidable which is, to the best of my knowledge an assumption, as the GPL has never been challenged in court.
Next, SCO said: "The GPL is selectively enforced by the Free Software Foundation ", which is a falsehood, as the FSF has enforced it's copyright, but, again, it has never made it to court because of the reasonable courses of action followed by the FSF.
And next, SCO laughingly said: "The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws" which is funny, because the GPL was FOUNDED on the principles of copyright. Antitrust is typically reserved for monopolies, of which the GPL is not. Lastly, what 'export controls' and 'copyright' have to do with each other amounts to nothing. A copyright notice cannot overrule export law, no matter what it says.
I would probably give up a lot of different things in exchange for being rich, but honestly, I can't see myself giving up my dignity or my intelligence the way DarylCo has..
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
If the SEC can prove that this is a classic Pump and Dump then they will see jail time. Thats one thing they have been very careful to enforce, the laws regulating the stock market. If you look at some of the things IBM has been asking for, they are documents that could be used to track stock sales by SCO officers, hence forth known as SCO 'Insiders'.
We all know IBM has the money to buy a few congressmen if neccessary, so don't be suprised if Darl does end up in jail. My only hope is that in the 'Big house' his new nickname will be girlfriend.......................
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
Get your 2.4 kernel source here.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
In the Microsoft case. I seem to remember a judge making public statements about how sleazy Microsoft had been (evidence manufacture and prejury)? Those public statements hurt the case in the end, didn't they?
Let's wait for the ruling. If this one goes to court, SCO is done for.
I got interested in this case because the first statement I read from SCO sounded so utterly clueless about law. They didn't seem to have even an elementary concept of what patents, trade secrets and copyrights are.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
I'm sure the judicial community winces when the think of Penfield Jackson shooting his mouth off. Kimball might give an interview when this business is completely finished. Even then, he'll likely keep it to generalities. I can't see any judge wanting the integrity of his rulings questioned.
With the source in the wild, GPL will just go off shore like the rest of the American computer business. Driven away from stupid business models.
While companies like SCO get away with baseless claims, and screw up the system... GPL will quietly live on CDs and hard drives outside of North America as to be safe from MBA/corporate greed. SCO's only tangeble product is extortion, FUD and scare tactics.
I say we nuke'em from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure......
if im not mistaken, the courts will be deciding if the GPL is upholdable under law, not SC(UM)O.
oh wait, its time for them to try to jack up their stock so the suits can sell again isnt it?
We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully "designed" to have come into existence by chance.
Also, considering that every other country in which SCO operates has told them to STFU...
Just because there aren't many lawyers here, does not mean that /. cannot collectively interpret the law with some degree of accuracy, it is written in English afterall.
A lot of people here have seen other cases and watched court proceedings; it's not as if law is some magical practice only understood by those who practice it.
Furthermore, groklaw seems to agree largely with /..
Anyway, "What the fuck are you going to do if SCO wins?", fuck if I know :) Move to Canada? Seriously, I have future business plans that depend on Linux... so... that's not out of the realm of possibility.
I guess if SCO wins, we fight to take back our court system from the special interests that are currently influencing it. We support Linux in other countries, as they drop MS like a hot rock. We bury our own computer industry.
Etc., etc., etc.
But personally, if SCO wins, I'll probably change my line of work, and I'll continue using Linux (in secret, woooo) as a hobby until this fucking country is fixed or I leave it altogether.
Fuck it, why do I bother?
How the fuck am I supposed to know? Heh, :)
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
The way I see it is that SCO can't win if they win! When they disclaim GPL, even if they win the suite against IBM, the GPL is invalid, thus they had no right to distribute their version of Linux... Talk about a self defeating argument!
Do you have personal knowledge that PJ is a guy who cross dresses?
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
There is no word copywritten. Or copywrite either.
The opposite of Copyright is CopyWrong, not CopyLeft. The "right" in Copyright is not "write" as something you do with a pencil, nor "right" as in the opposite of "left", but "right" as in the "right to copy".
Copywrong would be a word with the same flavor as the RIAA and MPAA. Copyleft, which the FSF uses is the wrong opposite of "right". It is the opposite of the wrong "right".
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
No! No! No! Copyright law says no such thing. It's extremely important that you understand this. Your ignorance will influence law to favor EULAs.
Copyright law excludes other people from copying, distributing, publicly performing, or harming the artistic integrity of your work. They need your permission (i.e. license) to do any of these things. A license agreement is a contract that says, "if you agree to my terms, I'll share my exclusive rights to this work with you." You only need to agree to a software license if you intend to copy, distribute, publicly perform, or modify software.
You do not need a license agreement to run software off of a CD that you buy. If you open up a box and find a "license agreement" inside, ignore it. The transient copies of a program that are a necessary part of running it are explicitly allowed under copyright law so long as you're the lawful owner of your copy (e.g. the CD you bought), so you don't need the copyright owner's permission.
Shrink-wrap licenses are gaining ground in the courts, however. If license terms are conspicuously visible on the outside of the package, you may be held to them. Click-through licenses are still questionable, because the contract was sealed when you paid for the product, and click-through "licenses" try to change contract terms after the sale. The danger is this: when the average consumer has a "reasonable expectation" that he's obligated to agree to a click-through license after purchasing software, these "licenses" may become enforceable contracts.
Know your rights! Use them or lose them!
I swear SCO get a clue game over you loose.
1. IBM's Lawyers believe the GPL is workable. In fact I can not seem to find any Law expert that is not employed by you that agrees with your paid experts.
2. By releasing code under the GPL does not transfre the rights to the FSF.
3. You have admited to violating IBMs patents. As much as I really hate the idea of software patents your case is all about IP rights you are toast.
4. IBM has the source to Unix and the source to Linux. I will bet you a dollar to a dime that they have already audited the source code. They are not backing down so they must think they can win.
5. What type of stupid liars will you look like in court when you claim that the GPL is invalid yet you yourself have released code under it?
Just die. You could have been a contender Caldera. You could have been a company that people would have been proud to work for. Now you are dead. No one will ever trust you again. The people that still work there may never find jobs in IT again.
Your name is mud.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
All this rhetoric is getting old. I just wish that when it reaches court IBM would file a motion requesting to "televise" the whole thing via a webcam. It would be better than OJ!
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
I think you meant to say "ahem, Al Gore, cough cough, election, cough, 2000"!!!
Really, why is it that we jump up and down and scream about the outrage that was the USSC's decision and the partisan split in that decision and give the Fla SC a free pass?
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
GPL is a license. It is a contract between the consumer/user of the software and the copyright owner, explaining the rights of the user as permitted by the copyright owner. Regardless of the license, if you wrote the code, you own the copyright. It's yours, and neither SCO, IBM, FSF or anyone else can take away that ownership. Period.
This is yet more FUD.
I searched the SEC website and found no information about ongoing investigations. (Apparently it is their policy to not publicize investigations.) I filled out a web form on their site and was quite surprised to receive a phone call the next day from an SEC investigator.
I spoke with the gentleman for about 45 minutes. He's a stock geek, and I'm a computer geek - different worlds, to be sure.
I did my best to communicate what I believe are the essential issues in this matter - that SCO
Is filing lawsuits to manipulate potential investors' opinions about them and their products
Is lying about the core issues in the case
Is a sham - not really developing technology but using IP (their definition) to wrest dollars from "infringers," and
That the leadership within the company is pumping and potentially dumping stock
The investigator listened patiently to my explanation and asked good "process" questions - he heard what I had to say.
He indicated that he wanted to be sure that he understood my issues (IP and copyright issues are not day to day issues for them)
Unfortunately he indicated that he did not believe that he could express my concerns cogently, and that there was not enough volume of stock being sold by insiders to justify starting an investigation.
He did tell me that if we could demonstrate that SCO leaders knowingly lied about their products or other companies, he needed to know about that because that was substantive enough to justify an investigation.
Note that we don't have to find where they sold stock on the basis of the lies, only be able to demonstrate clear false statements.
I found it interesting that
a) They would contact me
b) They would listen to me
c) They want to protect the public from abusive leaders, and
d)They would show me how to help them initiate an investigation.
Find the lies and report them, and the SEC will get engaged. Remember that what seems completely obvious to a tech geek may not be clear to a stock geek. (and vice-versa) Do the legwork, find the proof and then in a clear, concise, non-inflammatory way using layman's terms communicate that to the SEC, and they will do their job. They can't do what they don't understand. Remember that they have to prove it in a court of law, not a court of open-source advocates.
Regards,
Anomaly
PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you want to know more about this, please email me.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
It seems to me that the the POINT of copyright is to protect the author. Since the model is based on books, let's think about how books are published. I, the author, write a book and start printing copies of it (for sake of simplicity, let's say I conveniently own a printing company as well).
You, the evil slashdot reader, purchase a copy of my book, copy it verbatim, claim it as your own work, and print it on YOUR printing press. That's one way to violate copyright, because you're taking something I wrote and claiming it to be your own.
How else could you violate the copyright law? You could buy my book, copy it verbatim, credit me, and print off copies on your printing press so you can sell them in your bookstore. That's illegal because I did not give you permission to print my book.
The words and abstract thoughts contained in my book still belong to me. When you purchase my book, you purchase the right to read my words, but you do not own the words or thoughts.
Of course, there are exceptions, many exceptions. The most obvious is publishing, in which I retain ownership of my words and thoughts, but I allow you to print, distribute, and sell them. In this case, you have my permission.
Other exceptions exist, such as quotations and educational purposes, but those aren't terribly applicable to software.
So how does this apply to software? The basics of copyright law are pretty obvious. When someone writes something, he or she owns it (in legal terms, holds the copyright). Further, he or she has the force of government enforcing the copyright.
As we've seen, the author can do whatever wheeling and dealing with the copyright he or she desires. It seems perfectly logical that an author may release the work into public domain. Just as an author may grant license to a publisher to reproduce the work (usually under a certain set of provisos: the author must OK the final edited work, the author must be credited, etc.). Similarly, a public domain work may be released under a similar set of provisos (when I was writing, I released my work on contingency that it was unchanged and I was credited). Similar to a publishing license, if the publisher (in this case, unknown distributor) does not agree with the license, then the rights granted under that license are unapplicable.
Applying this to software, most GPL and otherwise open source software is typically released under the same guidelines. The user may use the author's work if the guidelines are met. Just like a public domain literary piece, the author allows the user to use the software provided that it is not altered and that the original author is credited. That's not so crazy.
Most open source software takes this one step further and states that any changes released must also be released to the author, potentially perpetuating the quality of the software. Nothing really wrong with that. The author owns it. He's allowing you to use it. If you don't agree to the terms, you're not allowed to use it. Simple enough.
The sticking point is the GPL's derivative work clause. Anything derived from a piece of GPL'd software has to be released under the GPL. This creates a nasty sticking point with the GPL, which makes it particularly difficult for our friend Big Business to deal with. However, following the flow, the author(s) still own it (that's copyright law) and they are allowing you to use it IF you agree to the rules.
As established WAY at te top, the whole purpose of copyright is to protect the author. I don't really think it's the interest of the government to mitigate license disagreements. They're more involved in just protecting the owner, not trying to remove his copyright.
:wq
IANAL, but I have to wonder here. We all know that SCO was giving away under the GPL what they are now claiming should never have been given away. Furthermore, they are claiming the GPL is unconstitutional.
So why did they enter into OpenLinux?
I think they are now damned if they do, damned if they don't. *IF* everything they claim is true, then they mislead their business partners in the OpenLinux effort. These partners contributed additional development effort, money and other resources to an endevour that SCO now claims they own in its entirety. Wouldn't that be fraud?
Okay, so now TurboLinux, Suse and the other entities involved in OpenLinux turn around and sue SCO for fraud. People go to jail.
Open source violates the constitution? THE CONSTITUTION!! Show me the source -- as it were!
Does Ashcroft know about this? Every time the Amish try to instigate a communal barn raising, he better get there quick to throw their commie, pinko asses in prison. Nobody cooperates for free with anybody! Not in this country, citizen. Is that it?
We better shut down all volunteer organizations right now. You have to bet individuals freely spread their intellectual creativity around like rats in places like that.
Sorry. When these scum wrap themselves in the constitution, that is the final straw for me.
I have heard SCO attack our rights and our property.
(Yes, I believe we all own rights to Linux under the GPL)
I feel we have all been guilty of apathy.
SCO has corporate clients. We need to put pressure on any user of SCO software.
We can call, write, e-mailand protest in front of SCO Scum Clients ASAP.
A few million boycott e-mails to each, would work.
These are SCO supporters that I am aware of:
(from http://www.sco.com/company/success/)
HP and Compaq
McDonalds Corp.
PizzaHut Corp.
Wendys Corp.
i Mobile Computing, Inc. (iMC)
HON Industries
Safeco Field, home of the Seattle Mariners
Michaels arts and crafts
Peter's Food Service in Bedwas, South Wales
Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc. W. Bridgewater, MA
Sound Advice Electronics stores
Shoppers Drug Mart, Canada
Kuwait Petroleum Corp.
Sodexho Australia, Telstra Stadium in Australia
Pearle Europe B.V.
Costco Wholesale
Family Mart, Taiwan
Save Mart Supermarkets, the Modesto, Calif
Professional Datasolutions Inc (PDI), Temple, TX
Rouse's, Grocery Thibodaux, La.
Store 24, Waltham, Mass.
Swiss Chalet, Los Angeles, Houston and Miami
Condor Software, Pelham, Ala.
PCMS, Coventry, England
The Dixon Group, England
Currys
PC World computer specialty stores.
The Link mobile phone specialty stores.
Telsoft
Switchview
Nuance
APEX Voice Communications
Brooktrout Technology
Virginia- based EIS International
Faximum Software Inc.
Fujitsu
Chelmsford, Massachusetts-based Voicetek
NEC America, Inc.'s (NEC) Corporate Networks Group
Priority Call Management of Wilmington, Mass
Richmond Hill, Ontario based Synamics Inc.
Microlog Germantown, Maryland
Nortel, Brampton Ontario, Canada
Palace Resorts Cancun, Mexico
Cendant Corp
Cendant lodging brands include Amerihost Inn, Days Inn, Howard Johnson, Knights Inn, Ramada Inn, Super 8, Travelodge
W.E.T. Automotive Systems AG, Odelzhausen, Germany
If Linux users loudly boycott SCO clients, SCO will back down FAST.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
Since there is (so far) a way to make you sign a contract through the Internet; most licenses use to say that 'By using this software you agree to the terms of this license' or something like that. So, imagine (this requires _lots_ of imagination ; - ) i just buy Unixware and install it on my server, it works a few years, and i make lots of money developing applications and hosting p0rn sites under this plataform, but one day i decide that the terms of the SCO's license are abusive, i can't say a word, cause by using the software all those years, i acepted they license, and i can't took it back.
Now, it Shoudln't happend the same if SCO use some software???
I Would like to remind you that SCO had a line of GNU/Linux products, and that they made money with them while they were allmost broken.
So, That is a way to accept the GNU License, to sign a contract. If they didn't agree with the license, they shouldn't use the software. But they not only 'used' GNU Software, they also developed an (ugly) GNU/Linux distro!!!. So, that probes that they acepted the license, and that invalidates any further legal actions.
Just my 2 cents. (i want them back with a 15% anual interest + taxes.)
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Licenses are agreements, made on the own terms of the parties involved, yes. But ask yourself.. what happens when people want to exit an agreement?
Typically, the answer is litigation. What happens in contract litigation? Contracts are brutally picked apart, word for word. If the contract is found to be problematic, parts of it may be void. e.g. if the GPL violates contract law, it's out in the cold. The (ugly) beauty of it is, a single case that breaks the GPL is all that's really needed for anyone else to present the same arguments and get out of that same agreement.
Now, the main purpose of all that obscure language in a contract is to protect each side's interests against that. But its mere presence demonstrates why it's needed.
I knew a pretty good IP lawyer once. He said 90% of the protection against litigation is outside the contract.. i.e. not getting in bad relationships in the first place. Once it's down to litigation, it's very much a question of time and money how it turns out.
Now, the GPL, at least to my eye, is a fine contract with a lot of attention to detail. We should be very grateful to the FSF for making it so well.
However, the vested interests of the software industry have had the GPL in their sites for some time now. Even at the small companies I've worked for, there's kind of a underground rumor mill between the execs and general counsel about possibilities for breaking it. The few times I've had the oppportunity to talk to execs at larger companies, it's positively hated. This isn't conspiracy, it's competition... even *ideological* competition. There would be a huge sigh of relief in the old business community if the GPL could be ignored. I have some choice epithets in mind to describe this kind of thinking, but we've heard them all before.
I think it would be very unwise for the free software community to underestimate the risks involved here. The more this story develops, the more it looks like SCO will be the first concerted, and possibly successful effort, to kill the GPL.
We want to say "but it does the right thing in the right way". They want to say "find a way to break it so we can make money." This goes back to not getting in bad relationships in the first place.
So, think damage control. Don't be surprised to see a GPL version 3 in the works. We'd have to get it out en force to keep things honest.
Then all Windows belong to XEROX
I am wondering.. how could a company toss out such utter nonsense.. unless there is ANOTHER reason.
Lets say.. SCO loses.. and loses bad. They will have established the legal aspects of Linux. They will have pushed major publicity of how great Linux really is..
SCO is still distributing Linux.
Can Darl hope to lose.. and make money in the meantime?
That if he was.. and made sure SCO lost and made precedent.. then he would be the MAN. If not he should rot in IT hell.
I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
The Constitution is a document that RESTRICTS what government can do. As the FSF is a private charity and not a government, it is impossible for the FSF to do or create something that is unconstitutional.
Organization: alphabetical, sometimes numerical or messy
Without the GPL, everyone would have implemented everyone-but-SCO licenses, which would most likely kill SCO.
First, kill ALL THE LAWYERS. Then we can get on with things. As you can tell, this WOULD SOLVE THIS PROBLEM IMMEDIATELY.
Does Noorda still hold any controlling interest in Novell?
Does Novell hold any controlling interest in Canopy or SCO?
Is Noorda pulling any of the strings? Can Novell's acquisition of Ximian, or their attempted takeover of Suse, be part of some "master plan" that, taken with SCO's activities, advances Noorda's interests?
I think Darl McBride will bring a new meaning to the phrase "pump and dump" when he sees the inside of whatever white-collar pris^H^H^H^Hresort to which he's sent.
"Squeal like a pig, boy!"
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
I think you can drop the One Company and IBM lawyers part.. it doesn't really matter who's behind the effort, these interests are, unfortunately, shared far and wide.
But yes.. there will be new law passed.. I expect not so subtlety. After all, who's paying the politicians? Free software geeks or corporations? (hint: not geeks)
The supreme court rules that all copyrights are null and void, except for those claimed by SCO. Darl McBride, in his usual state of absolute clairvoyance, responded, "I have always been confident that the courts would rule in favor of our Intellectual Property Claims. After all, programmers only exist to serve the non-technical elite, and don't deserve rights of their own. All hail the fair and benevolent insect queen!"
In certain circimstances, yes. But recall what SCO is arguing here - they're arguing that the GPL is null and unenforceable. And if they argue that, then there is no license, particularly when the GPL does say, specifically, that you can't distribute the software if you don't agree to all terms. The GPL is in parts, but that part has to stand up.
Absent GPL, as many others have pointed out repeatedly, SCO has *no* right to use Linux code. Either SCO has violated the GPL, or failing that, copyright law in general. They can pick.
There are more rigorous arguments they could make - specifically a due diligence argument that they didn't know (although they'll fail since they didn't suspend distribution).
I'll put it this way - there's no judge in the world who will say "This contract is unenforceable - therefore, one party gets *everything* they were granted under the null contract, and the other side gets nothing." That won't happen.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
And you shall recieve.
Why yes I am paranoid! Thanks for asking!
then SCO is guilty of pirating the Linux kernel!!
-- I am. Therefore, I think!
The Center for Responsive Politics runs this great site called Open Secrets, which tracks who's giving and who's getting the publically-trackable $ in D.C.. This is their overview of the Software/Internet industry.
Notice the part below about law that was passed by virtue of the the interests of big software companies. Does GPL sound very interesting next to trade relations with China? Or, right next to "passage of Y2K liability reform" imagine the addition of "passage of GPL liability reform".
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/backgroun
"Background: Computers/Internet
The past decade saw the computer industry rise from the back benches of the American economy to become one of its major players - so important that it's now a driving force in the economy's overall health. The industry's breathtaking success has produced an equally stunning rise in political activity, particularly through campaign contributions. In 1990, the computer industry ranked 55th out of the roughly 80 industries the Center tracks, with about $1.3 million in contributions to federal candidates and parties. Just 10 years later in the 2000 elections, the industry cracked the top 10 list, with more than $30 million in contributions.
Not surprisingly, the high-tech companies that are responsible for the largest amounts of campaign contributions also have netted the biggest profits during the Internet boom: Microsoft, America Online, Cisco, Dell, and Oracle. Their generosity helped win several big victories in the 106th Congress. Among them were passage of permanent trade relations with China, an increase in the number of visas issued to foreign high-tech workers, passage of Y2K liability reform, an increase in federal funding for research, and enactment of a tax credit for research and development. The industry also met with success in what Congress did not do - namely, advance plans to tax Internet commerce.
The computer industry's strategy for the current Congress resembles that of a sports team with a large lead: play defense and preserve the status quo. The industry wants to prevent any attempts to reverse its recent successes, focusing in particular on preserving the moratorium on Internet taxes and limiting the federal government's role in Internet privacy issues.
Microsoft has an additional concern all its own: the federal government's attempts to declare it an illegal monopoly and break the company into pieces. President Clinton's Justice Department vigorously pursued its antitrust case against the software giant, and company executives are hoping to fare better under President Bush's administration.
Overall, the industry has been scrupulously bipartisan in its contributions, giving nearly equal amounts to Democrats and Republicans, and thus ensuring broad support on both sides of the political aisle in Congress.
Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. "
I hope you can look you kids in the eye when you wake up in the morning. If you guys think the GPL is invalid then stop shipping GPL code in your product and come up with something on your own. Oops - I forgot you are basing the future of your company on GPL code so I guess you can't. Oh well hope you can look at your kids in the eye anyway.
I get the feeling that this is the end of a process, probably started a long time ago deep inside Microsoft in the attempt to label the GPL as an IP Virus. The spin at the time coming from MS was that the GPL either was or should be illegal. This may just be the tail end of a project that was given a little money to try and bring that about. Someone was probably clever enough to see the SCO thing starting to happen and, tap into it and inject a little money and influence to twist it into something that would get us here. Weather or not that this ends in Mircosofts favor, at least they tried and at the end they will know where they stand.
This is a good thing for the GPL since it will probably finally get it's day in court with someone arguing that you can't do what the GPL does. Lots of smart people have looked at the GPL and decided it will hold up and is pretty iron clad but it would still be nice to get that as a ruling from a judge.
Personally, I think all of software licenses are on shaky ground since it's really an unsigned contract and seemingly not enforceable. I think there should be such a thing as a software licence and an end user licence agreement but the EULA's should limitations clearly spelled out somewhere.
It's time for a "Software Owner's Bill of Rights" where we have our rights to use, backup, and transfer software between computers explicitly stated and a system of fines for any company that sells software that violates these rights. Other things that should be explicitly granted as "Fair Use" for any purchased copy of software is patching, reverse engineering, and we could even add things like an option:
1. You can install on 4 computers simultaneously but then the software can't be transferred to any others.
2. You can only install on one machine at a time but you can move it any number of times.
And which option is chosen could be up to the company selling the software but one of those two must be chosen. Any technical measures installed in the software to remove fair use rights could be delcared illegal as part of the Software Owner's Bill of Rights. Wouldn't that be cool! We have the concept of Fair Use for copyrighted works we purchase but the software world has tried to remove anything like fair use from their products using End User License Agreements. It's time to extend the laws and get Fair Use rights back for good.
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
It would be pretty kewl to have him for the interview AFTER the case.
Because before the case, even if he makes general statements, SCO is going to try to have him removed as predjudicial. If he is as reasonable as is portrayed here, let it ride, and let him rule.
Then we can ask specific questions, because the case will be decided.
(since SCO using the code is allowed by the GPL)
Not any more, it's not. SCO has claimed they do not accept the terms of the GPL; according the the GPL, that means they are not licensed to use that code under the terms of the GPL.
This is a clear case of copyright infringement. The second SCO claimed the GPL was invalid (in effect, claiming they do not agree to the terms of the GPL), they lost all rights to use GPLd code that is not their own.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Doesn't SCO's rejection of the GPL constitute an estoppel barring them from distributing anything and everything that's GPL'd?
..or maybe the fact that they've already done so constitutes an estoppel against their claim that the GPL is invalid...?
You can't have it both ways.
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
Thats what needs to be done.. Once it has been decided what code is in violation, depending on the quantity and its complexity (which sounds extreamly minimal at best).. It can be recoded/worked around and a a SCO IP free Kernel can be put out and all this can goto rest and SCO falls flat on its face and dies its hopefully quick and painful death.
With all the ruckus SCO is making in the linux comunity I am sure it would take a matter for days/weeks of a collabertive effort to rid the kernel of all offending code and end this madness..
Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
It seems that everyone here ignores one of the main premises of marxist historical theories. Communism will become feasible when the society has sufficient production capabilities. Why do you think Soviet Union had such tremendous industrial growth? It was because they were striving to meet the "prerequisites" for communism. More tractors, more coal, more grain, more everything. The problem was that the Soviet Union was too far away from the goal and because of certain factors decided to make a switch to liberal democracy / free market economy.
When we have robots, AI and nanotechnology, communism will become the natural socio-economic order, because capital will no longer be scarce (and ultimately the ownership of capital will be abandoned). With the speed things are currently happening, we can expect communism in a few decades or so. The topic of the discussion (GPL) suddenly becomes relevant to this thread, because open source is an early model of communism and it works great. Many people will spend time working for the benefit of others when needed. The only problem is that there is still too much work required from everyone and a lot of jobs are not fun. Once you can eliminate bad jobs with automation (there are a lot of people who would refuse to do cleaning jobs, but would be happy designing software and hardware for cleaning robots) and reduce required working time to a comfortable level (let's say 10 hours per week), you can make all labour voluntary and most goods/services free. Voila! Communism is built.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
My girlfriend grew up in communist Poland. She once described it this way:
Communism means having plenty of money, but nothing to buy. Everyone has a job and enough money to buy things they need, but the store shelves are empty.
Capitalism means having no money, but plenty of things to buy. There are no jobs and no money, but the store shelves are full of nice things.
Wipe of the smoke from your looking glass and you may start seeing that you don't understand what success is. Nor do you understand what beauty is, nor do you understand what wealth is.
I wasn't talking about success, wealth or beauty, only survival.
Only a fool would want a wife he can afford.
Whatever do you mean by that? How many homeless beggars dating supermodels have you seen ? Has Jennifer Loper, Madonna, Victoria Addams, Cindy Crawford or any famous and pretty girl go out with a homeless rag dressed dumb guy ?
What determines survival is not how you look or how much money you have.
Talk to me more. And tommorrow go to work with grease hair, stinking breath, dressed in rags with holes, and dirty. After you have been fired try to pick up an attractive, popular girl, by talking to her about your experiences so far and why you are right. And try to live a month without any money (not even begging) then comment again!
If you think Bill gates is a success because of his financial wealth, think again.
An experiment was made in France using DNA tests to see how many children are bastards (their "guessed" father is not the real one; the "guessed" didn't have a clue of course). The rate was 15%. So about every seventh child in France has a "wrong father". You don't really know, how many children Bill has. But possibly a lot, and if that's right, people in the future will be more like him, than like you, sorry , tough luck.
he hasn't found what he is seeking in life
There's is a saying, that people are generally unhappy, because all happy people just died out - there were not paranoid enough. If you are happy, you are careless and an easy target.
What is nice about Linux is just the fact that it eliminates greed. If that is communism, then so be it. For the same reason you would argue that democracy is anti-evolution because it respects the rights of the minority. Or maybe you agree that humans should be allowed to 'con' each other if they can since that is survival of the fittest.
As usual, people just don't get. In order to survive you **have** to ***cooperate***!!!. I'll take your sentences one by one, in reverse order:
Or maybe you agree that humans should be allowed to 'con' each other if they can since that is survival of the fittest.
You have two societies, one where people kill each other easilly, and the other, where such things are strictly forbidden and punished. The society, where people kill each other is a total anarchy, there are no institutions like universities, thus no technologies, thus no weapons. On the other hand, the cooperating society is *very advanced*. One day, just by accident and without much notice the advanced civilization crushes the brutal one and casts it into oblivion. Sorry.
For the same reason you would argue that democracy is anti-evolution because it respects the rights of the minority.
Doesn't make much sense to me. In order for any community to be strong, it has to be well integrated. Discriminating minorities is very inefficient, since you waste time and energy, that other communities employ to building and developing and advancing. They might (and have - see Nazis or the Soviet Union vs. the USA) crush the discriminating ones.
What is nice about Linux is just the fact that it eliminates greed
As I said before, cooperation is the key. Software is unique, say to screens or wardrobes, because you build it on layers. To view a Java applet you have to:
a) have an operating system
b) have a browser that works on a)
c) have a java plugin that works on b)
The company that controls the lowest layer can use it to extinguish competition. You have a monopoly and the whole system is ineffective. Linux and the GPL is a much stronger environment, because it is much more diverse. People do contribute to Linux, because it benefits them:
a) large companies can be independent of microsoft and earn more money. Every one can contribute using the GPL, b
> Display an Amercian flag on your vehicle - it literally is the least you can do!
It is not literally (see "figuratively") the least you can do. I do less than that by ignoring the fact that I live in a country at all.
Nope, in each case, it is the market that is in control. How many promising OpSrc projects have languished and died from apathy? How many promising new companies have gone the same way? Why is this the case? Because regardless of the merit of a given company/project, if there is no demand for the resulting product, this a natural result.
Incidentally, OpSrc is almost a purely capitalist phenom. OpSrc projects, as noted, are as affected by all the market factors that their Closed cousins are affected by. It really is easy to see if you can divorce the concept of money from the concept of profit.
This, more than anything else is the central thing that is being misunderstood. I forget where I read it, but capital of the soul is still capital.
Once you divorce monies from profits, the fact that both are essentially corollaries of each other becomes self-evident. OpSrc projects which better meet the demands of a given application environment will distribute more units. This profit results in that project being able to garner more developers and contributors. These folk too are driven by profit, in their case, the profit is the use of their contribution and the resulting ego massage.
The central difference between the two are not strictly market factors, but rather how market factors are interpreted and acted upon.
Consider versioning. In OpSrc, by and large new versions are incremental improvements on the previous version. File and binary formats tend to be relatively static. When they do change it is (usually) for the best of reasons. Backwards compatability tends not to be an issue because of this, even when backwards compatability is sacrificed, it is sacrificed on the altar of forward useability. The fluff which inevitably creeps into software is driven by the only real determining market factor, demand.
In ClSrc, new versions of programs are rarely incremental changes, most often they are radical changes compared to their OpSrc cousins. File and binary formats can change arbitrarily, often for no appreciable gain in performance or reliability. Backwards compatability is a requirement, even when such backwards compatability may be at the expense of forward useability. Fluff is often designed by committee, often on the basis of psuedo-scientific evidence which has at best a tenuous grip on the fluff which the market will actually demand.
Other fundamental differences exist, when you look through them the same underlying current repeats itself over and over. OpSrc is better a meeting what the market demands. ClSrc tends to aim for what the market can bear.
Ultimately, the OpSrc model is probably 'more capitalist' than the ClSrc model. However, just as the world has never seen true communism, it has never seen true capitalism either. The best products don't allways succeed in the real world, but in true capitalism, they _MUST_. But, more often than not, the emphasis has gone from responding to the demands of the market, to trying (with varying degrees of success) to shape or direct the demands of the market.
SCO apparently can't do either."Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
Actually, I don't think that's true. The way the GPL is worded, you can use (install, configure, run, etc.) GPLed software any way you want... but if you want to distribute binaries or modified versions of the software to someone else, you have to agree to the GPL first.
Here's the part of Section 0 in the GPL that talks about use:
The fact that SCO still has a Linux kernel source RPM on their website after publically declaring that they don't agree to the license should make for an entertaining copyright infringement suit by IBM, OSDL, SGI, etc.
"My life's work has been to prompt others... and be forgotten." --Cyrano de Bergerac
I guess if SCO wins, we fight to take back our court system from the special interests that are currently influencing it. :-)
Is it me, or am I hearing a thick Austrian accent there?
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
Which doesn't mean doodoo because the whole judical system is disfunctional. As has been pointed out before, the American legal system is a major part of the problem here. Other countries that are not stuck in the 18th Century such as Germany were able to cut the crap very quickly: Dear SCO, put up or shut up. End of story, no more bullshitting, while we're still screwing around, sending letters, writing memos, spending a fortune on lawyers.
The only good news for Linux in this special case is that the overriding principle of modern American law -- the guy with the most money wins -- means that SCO is going to get stomped by IBM. But this is basically going to be in spite of the legal system, not because of it. Where would your bets be if Microsoft was sueing instead of SCO?
Finally, in your last comment, you seem to link the courts to drafting DMCA and to the war in Iraq... both of which the judicial system had NOTHING to do with.
Sorry, most of the world does see a link because of the way U.S. courts decided that the government can do just whatever they feel like in Guantanamo. This, again, is incomprehensible to non-Americans: Why aren't U.S. soldiers bound by U.S. laws on their own bases? Why can they disregard just about every human right on the planet just because they happen to be in Cuba, and not only get away with it, but also get legal backing?
There is a good reason why Europe and other countries now just laugh in Americans' faces when they hear "Defender of the Free World" or "Protector of Human Rights". And the judical system is part of that problem.
The point of the GPL is not that it is free, but it offers 'freedom'. Linux and the GPL idea is also a very commercial, marketable product in the best tradition of the free market, not monopoly. It offers a strong revenue stream based on hardware and service sales in a field where competance, rather than market dominance rules, while at the same time utilizing massive economies of scale and aggregating development efforts. It is based on a science model, not a commerce model, where the software becomes basic research that companies use to make their products. It knocks down artificial barriers to competition, opening up superior and highly flexible service to customers and a wide range of products to choose from. The software is no longer product used to control, it is a tool of liberation. This is not a free ride, it is a long hard slog. But at the end is the freedom to be in command of the products that define your life; mainly computers, communication and media. The alternative is having a couple of corporations with complete control over every aspect of our lives down to the smallest detail by controlling the medium by which we communicate and work and forcing their product on us, M$, RIAA et cetera. This most definitely is not a free ride. Anyone who thinks it is a free ride is gravely mistaken, and extremely misinformed and is playing directly into the hands of SCO and their ilk. This ain't no commie, pinko scheme. This is in the tradition of FREEDOM AND LIBERTY, Let Freedom Ring BABY!!!!!!!
Sorry about the drama/cliches, I can't help myself...
a horrible place
IANAL, but a EULA with FSF IP involved may be applied with weak enforcement, i.e. the Linux Kernal with the GPL (which is also a EULA) but that doesn't preclude a party non-aligned with the FSF, such as IBM, HP, Sun or Linus, from enforcing their IP rights. It doesn't stop the FSF from enforcing their IP rights either. Just because AIX is based on Unix doesn't change this. IP is IP, SCO/M$ can't just take it. Selective IP enforcement is legal, as long as there is a harm or benefit caused implication, i.e. the RIAA lawsuits. The RIAA is able to coerce ISP's even to give ppl up. Unenforcability doesn't negate IP. That is BS! I wonder if someone can get an administrative subpoena under the DMCA for SCO transferral of IP they didn't own. That is exactly what Napster did, and they were shut down. That would be funny, lol.
Pure poetry!
Put your engineering hat on, and see that 'to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities' (the core of Marxist communism) is a pair of open-loop subsystems with no feedback. The result is each person takes without limit (no negative feedback), and has no reason to work at all (no positive feedback).
If everyone is a pure altruist the feedback is generated by a moral/ethical imperative. That means that Communism only works as a religion, not an economic system. However a pure materialist religion (i.e., existentialist, no hereafter) provides no incentive for altruism, only for a perception of altruism - there's no negative consequence for violation of the ethic. SO that doesn't work either. "No pie now, no sky later"
In the real world, so-called "communist" or "socialist" systems substitute organizational feedback - laws, suppression, etc. - for the material feedback (barter, cash, etc.) of traditional economies. The outcome of this is an economy based on influence, bribery and extortion instead of money, as demonstrated by every historical example.
The biggest challenge for economies transitioning from command-base to demand-base is that the participants don't have the necessary experience/"instincts". I have a suspicion that this is why the 'cold turkey' approach taken in Russia and now in Iraq is to complete overturn old expectations all at once so new habits can be built from the ground up. This is a kind of 'socio-economic boot camp', I guess.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
What is the relevance to my post? Someone was blathering about "freedom fighters" while the news is talking about how a want-to-be suicide bomber who was shot and killed in Iraq was carrying a Syrian passport.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
It was a socialist country, communism as defined by Marx is a society in which no government is needed because everyone helps each other, and no one wants to be better than the rest. (IIRC)
So, nobody can really tell what living in a communist society is like (except maybe at a very small scale, a little group of people).
What your girlfriend can tell you is what it's like to grow up in a socialist oligarchy, or dictatorship, or whatever it actually was, that claimed to be communist.
The passport/freedom fighters thing must have been in another thread I was replying to before. Sorry about that.
However, simply saying read this book gets nowhere. The fact is that you have a group of people who keep whining about the 2000 election and how "Bush and the USSC stole the election" and completely ignore both the tactics that Gore was using that started the whole mess and the fact that the Fla SC completely ignored their own laws in an attempt to give Al his recount.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
It was: "We (the Florida Supreme Court) will make the decision that results in the guy we want getting the White House."
The vote was right down party lines, don't kid yourself about the legal "excuses" they came up with. [Equal protection?] Voter intent? Come on.
(Bold text inserted, []'s show original text.)
The point was that Florida started the mess by trying to create law after the election. Remember those pictures of the guy holding a punch card up to the light and using a magnifying glass to devine "voter intent"?!?
Frankly, if you can't figure out how to operate a punch card then you certainly can't have an informed opinion on who should be president.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Time to get as many folks as possible to buy up all of SCO's outstanding shares, and turn them over in ONE block to IBM, Linus, whoever, and FIRE the whole lot of 'em!!! This whole argument has ALWAYS been without ANY merit or substance, and MUST be ended NOW! Whatta ya think??
How the heck where they ever going to "get the election right"?
No matter what way you slice it, no matter who you say did what right or wrong the margin of victory in Florida would forever remain below the margin of error.
Why would it be more legitimate if Gore won the state by 10 votes than Bush by 1,000? The precincts that everyone was complaining about (especially the infamous butterfly ballot) were controlled by Democrats. The horrible ballot that everyone is blaming was designed by a Democrat, was published in the newspapers before the election for comment and not word one was utterred.
What court orders did Harris directly disobey? How did this affect the outcome of COUNTRY-RUN elections?
My problem is that this is always presented as a one-sided "Bush stole the election" with the other side trying to wrap itself in the cloak of all things good and righteous. Meanwhile, Gore is cherry-picking counties, demanding selective recounts, trying to get absentee ballots from military people serving overseas thrown out, and the Fla SC was just as split and as partisan as anything the US SC could be accused of.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
The problem was that there wasn't any thing like "hanging" versus "swinging" versus "dimpled" there was only the all powerful "voter intent". The rules from county to county on how to determine that intent were different.
To make matters worse the physical manipulation of these ballots would cause physical changes thus further distorting "intent".
While the "machine" for punching the ballots may or may not be faulty IIRC you still remove the ballot upon completion and drop it in a box. That is the time to physically inspect the ballot (in fact I believe they were telling people to make sure all their "chads" were removed).
The butterfly ballot has only the Democrats to accept the blame for. Their people designed the ballot, published it for comment, and used it for the election.
Of course Jeb is going to promise that he'll work to help his brother win Florida. This is why he immediately recused himself from the whole process.
We can go round and round arguing which side did what that was heinous and evil, the points to remember are:
1) Neither "side" behaved terribly well in the process.
2) The margin of victory in Florida in 2000 will forever remain below the margin of error.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
You've got a margin of error of 180,000 votes in one of your quoted numbers. (Somewhere between 20,000 and 200,000 votes)
a l_college/popular_vote_2000.html)
What scientific methodology can create such a wide margin? Why is that margin so wide? What is the control that would make it seem that chosing the 20,000 number makes it more charitable?
There were a total of 5,963,070 counted votes in Fla for the 2000 election (http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/elector
20,000 votes = 0.3% of that total
200,000 votes = 3% of that total.
Error rates for punch card machines were being quoted at around 3.5%. We remain within the statistical noise.
Conspiracy or no conspiracy the vote was too close to be resolved in a way that would remove any doubt.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
That article that you linked me to starts with a reported and corrected error and then leaps off into the realm of should and if in quite a hurry.
Choice quote:
In the process, however, the list invariably targets a minority population in Florida, where 31 percent of all black men cannot vote because of a ban on felons.[...]
And if this unfairly singled out minorities, it unfairly handicapped Gore: In Florida, 93 percent of African-Americans voted for the vice president.
If minorities commit a majority of the felonies then how are they "unfairly singled out"?
There are also facts in there that Palm Beach and Duvall simply ignored the lists. In the other examples there are issues of how the individual counties treated the lists and whether they corroborated information or not. Again we're back to counties exercising their own rights and initiatives.
Your list of articles are a collection of self-serving items mainly about interviews for the writer of the book in question.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you want to know more about this, please email me.
Don't proselytize on an open forum. If God wants a relationship with me, He knows where to find me. He certainly doesn't need your help.
God loves the Goddess and wonders why you're halfway to atheism in ignoring her.
>> PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you.
Yeah, but so does the girl on the street corner, and her rates are better.
List to me very carefully, this comes from the very articles that you pointed me to.
1 &subject_name=Theft%20of%20Presidency)
One of the single biggest problems with the Florida voter records is that they don't have Social Security Numbers on them. This means that the only way to try to match felons to the voter roles is to work with name matches and other data like addresses and age. This is a horribly innaccurate way to approach things and it's the fault of the Florida records, not the actions of the contractor.
So, you want to fix things in Florida? Then petition to require that all voter records have Social Security Numbers. Simple solution that'll solve probably at least 90% of the complaints of this reporter.
You continue to miss the point I was making about your "list":
That's what I meant by saying that he "based his book" on those articles. The articles in question are based on interviews that he and others conducted, and documents that he was given.
Look at the list of articles:
(From the provided URL: http://www.gregpalast.com/columns.cfm?subject_id=
GIL NOBLE OF ABC'S "LIKE IT IS" INTERVIEWS GREG PALAST (TRANSCRIPT)
ABC News
Monday Apr 21, 2003
Transcript of Gil Rogers interview with Greg Palast
TRUTH IN EXILE
Creative Loafing
Friday Apr 11, 2003
Creative Loafing's John Sugg talks to Greg Palast about corporate malfeasance and the botched 2000 election.
ERIC BOSSE REVIEWS "THE BEST DEMOCRACY MONEY CAN BUY" FOR ALTERNET
AlterNet.org
Thursday Mar 20, 2003
Eric Bosse reviews "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" for Alternet
This is a list of interviews with the writer of the book and a review of the book. This is not a source page it is a promotion page.
This "reporter" is not working from a neutral position. He continues to allege theft and fraud and conspiracy when none of the facts to date support that conclusion.
Look at some of those "intimidation" allegations like the notorious road block alleged in one incident. The facts panned out that the roadblack in question was blocks away on a completely different street that isn't even the main route to the polling place in question. What documented and proven voter harassment was there in Florida?
Aren't you equally outraged that in one of the counties that ignored the purge list it was reported that 450 felons illegally voted? (Again from your links.)
Finally your trite:
Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it.
Completely misses the point. The past in question in this case is problems with purges of the voter lists and problems with the voting machines. So, tell me how incessantly carping on the "failures" of the previous election have done anything to improve the next one? Go out and get those SSN's added to the lists, have the DNC use some of their billions to educate the voters in those counties and buy better equipment.
Those who dwell on the past are doomed to never see the future.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/research/wpaper.nsf/d 745629e080d1fe88525698900714934/0187b761d98d941985 256c3f005659a8/$FILE/Databases,%20Felons%20and%20V oting.pdf
I found this one in my searches about Harris and election. This is the kind of thing that I'm much more interested. A scholarly look at actual numbers and where errors may have been introduced into the system. (I'm only about 50% through the reading of it right now.)
This is what we need to solve the problems we're facing.
I don't have a pre-formed opinion about the election results. I have an acknowledgement of the fact that statistically we'll never have a result we can hang our hat on.
What I do have a preformed opinion about is when I'm confronted with "Bush stole the election" that it is done as a statement of fact without acknowledging the statistical issues or even attempting to resolve the problems with the "theft" in question.
Maybe dwell was a little rough, but seeing posts (not from you mind you) that talk about "Commander in Thief" and what not are simply not constructive.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Really, I hadn't dug into the whole thing with any real care before we started this whole discussion. It's been enlightening.
:-D
I say we get together and do a hostile takeover of Diebold and get this thing right for 2004!
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.