Slashdot Mirror
Groklaw Outlines More SCO Linux Contributions
An anonymous reader writes "Groklaw today reported that they have discovered another SCO programmer, Tigran Aivazian, who has committed code to the Linux kernel. According to the latest story Mr. Aivazian contributed a microcode update feature, a testing program, and made contributions to SMP and vmalloc. This new story adds weight to earlier stories about Caldera coder Chris Hellwig's additions to XFS, SMP and JFS. " Also on the SCO front, an anonymous reader writes "SCO's last Open Letter has drawn two new responses, one from Red Hat cofounder Bob Young, and the other from Jon 'maddog' Hall. 'maddog' makes a carefully reasoned rebuttal that defends the GPL and includes observations like 'How could the founding fathers or the early legislators have foreseen the Web, or even computers?' Young curtly offers McBride the following advice: 'Be less vocal' - making him the King Canute of Linux, perhaps, because it ain't gonna happen anytime soon."
How "carefully reasoned" can a piece be by a guy called maddog???
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
(note: this is NOT an intentional troll. i'm just trying to understand this issue as best i can. thanks for not kicking me in the teeth :)
as far as i can tell, the SCO is upset with linux because several of its programmers contributed to the linux kernel, and so SCO feels that it deserves some sort of monetary kickback, right?
but, if you contribute to something that you KNOW is open-source, don't you, like, forfeit any ability to request monetary compensation for your effort? or am i missing something big here?
Now that the Denial of Service stuff is over with, we can get back to the regular SCO articles...
Though it would be fun for everyone who reads Slashdot to send SCO a letter in complaint of their business practices, especially if they were all sent within the same week. Would they try to call receiving a million pieces of mail in six days an 'attack' too?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
This article is interesting because it shows that some of the code allegedly added by IBM was in fact added by SCO itself.
... and here I was thinking that I needed a tinfoil hat.
Trolling is a art,
"Hello! Hello, McBride!!! Anybody home?"
Well, it's more Biff Tannen, but it's a descendant of Mad Dog.
Other Mad Dog quotes:
"We have ourselves a new court house, high time we had a hanging!"
"What's wrong dude, you yellow?"
And perhaps the most appropriate:
"I hate manure!"
Seriously, this is not a troll:
Being as
Trolling is a art,
The site to read when you want to see whatever was on Groklaw 48 hours ago.
Does anyone wonder...
1. The technological world moves fast, this is its nature. To slow any portion of it down is to kill it. If you force a technology to wait on slower social systems like justice the world moves on without it.
2. We saw this with Netscape. Sure they won the case, Mircrosoft was held to be in violation of the law, but by the time the issue was resolved the browser wars were old news.
3. Is this what we're seeing with SCO? Freeze up the linux community just long enough and the world will pass them by. Are the same actors involved? Does SCO get money from Microsoft? Bill's a smart man, why not loose a battle to win the war?
** Insert popular political comment here.**
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
If only more execs were like him, we would have a much better business atmosphere here in the U.S. of A.
Thanks Mr. Young, I've always had the utmost respect for you.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
But when push comes to shove the courts system is going to have the final say so. I hope with all my heart that whatever judge oversees this case will make the correct decision and squash SCO like the bug they are.
Get Movie Posters
The JFS code came from OS/2, not from AIX.
Please, if you don't know what you are talking about, don't present it as fact.
Would it have killed you to have added the words I think somewhere in that sentence?
"Groklaw today reported that they have discovered another SCO programmer, Tigran Aivazian, who has committed code to the Linux kernel."
My take is that if a SCO programmer contributed code, then of course SCO wanted the code contributed and it then falls under the GPL. This seems reasonable. The idea that worries me is that SCO may claim that the programmer(s) was/were rogue and made the contributions against their "corporate policy". Then what do you do? The genie is out of the bottle, you can't take it back and who does SCO go after - the programer or the Linux community?
AngryPeopleRule
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
Well, since they have been ordered to show the code in the court in january I think we will se the end of this. One question I Do have is:
I do not live in America, but shouldnt there be a lot of people reporting SCO to the appropriate governmental Body that oversees frauds in the stockmarket? (SEC)
How is that going, do they have any official stance on that or?
Are they waiting until the hammer falls (most likely) in heavy disfavor to Sco?
Care to enlighten a foreigner?
You'll notice that the entire point is that Groklaw has now established these contributors had policy/supervisor approval.
We always knew that Mr. Aivazian contributed to Linux; the new thing that Groklaw has unveiled here is that he can be proven to have been acting as an authorized agent of SCO.
-- Super Ugly Ultraman
"'maddog' makes a carefully reasoned rebuttal that defends the GPL and includes observations like 'How could the founding fathers or the early legislators have foreseen the Web, or even computers?'"
maddog isn't careful enough to avoid the irrelevant "author's intent" of the "framers" of the US Constitution. The primary design principle of the Constitution was to model the "natural" rights of people in a document that would guide a just government, mainly by limiting its power. Their primary mechanism for making the model accurate was to enumerate mechanisms for keeping it current, starting immediately with the first 10 amendments (the Bill of Rights). That's why the US government is now the oldest in existence, excepting some ways of looking at China and the Vatican (and some other tiny places). The founders of the USA had insight, more accurate than foresight. Much of that insight was gained through the importance of publishing in the colonies - NB Ben Franklin as publisher, Thomas Paine the leafleteer, and many others.
The self-reinforcing dynamic feedback relationship between the US government structure and the people has shaped both the government and the people, keeping them in relative harmony. maddog can forget about the "founders", as long as he keeps the Constitution (to be read in the present tense) in mind - a living document that really works.
--
make install -not war
This is devastating news for SCO, for they can no longer claim to have protected they 'trade secrets' appropriately, thus they might loose rights to whatever they did on jfs in the courts.
... loose. Good.
On the other hand, they failed to cough up any sensible evidence so far, and my guess is that they are clueless about the affairs at 'old' SCO. This relevation might point them to the right direction - they can pinpoint precisely where code exchange between unixware and linux took place. They can either submit this as new evidence (deadline: jan 8?) and loose, or disregard it and
SCO has been on the decline for a long time. There market is small and medium x86 unix machines which linux is replacing.
I think this is a scheme by the executives to pump the stock and make some money. There is also the remote possiblity that they could get a verdict against IBM and get lucky and have it stand up on appeal. Given todays legal system and the lawsuit happy environment we are in the odds are probably worth taking, especially for a dying company.
If there was any merit to SCO's accusations Im sure we would have seen something by now. After this is over, assuming they lose, I think they should be investigated for fraud.
question... (Score:5, Interesting) :)
by Clever Pun (729719) on Saturday December 13, @03:40PM (#7712121)
(note: this is NOT an intentional troll. i'm just trying to understand this issue as best i can. thanks for not kicking me in the teeth
as far as i can tell, the SCO is upset with linux because several of its programmers contributed to the linux kernel, and so SCO feels that it deserves some sort of monetary kickback, right?
but, if you contribute to something that you KNOW is open-source, don't you, like, forfeit any ability to request monetary compensation for your effort? or am i missing something big here?
[ Reply to This ]
As we all know, open source code is transparent; it's all out there for everyone to see.
So why did it take four years to notice this?
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Pretty funny when Bart says, "Hey Darl!"
Check out this screen capture.
Usurper_ii
Ron Paul
Its been thought of. And more or less refuted in general. And while I cant find the link, I remember a groklaw admin specificly stating that being slashdotted wasent an issue; they could handle it.
I say this is a deep-cover infiltration operation.
The owls are not what they seem
Really pathetic and unoriginal troll there. You need to check out the Adult's guide to trolling for some suggestions.
Well since the alleged flood on SCO's web site, I was curious enough to go visit it. Interesting are the news items there.
SCO Ranked 75 In Deloitte Technology Fast 500
The SCO(R) Group (SCO) (Nasdaq: SCOX), a leading provider of business software solutions, today announced its ranking-number 75-on the 2003 Deloitte Technology Fast 500, a ranking of the 500 fastest growing technology companies in North America.
Darl McBride Ranked in Top 25 IT Executives for 2003
Darl McBride, president and CEO of The SCO Group, was ranked among the top 25 executives in the IT industry, according to CRN. The ranking represents McBride's fight to raise industry awareness of the importance of protecting intellectual property in a digital age"
and then this little troll from SCO in the NEWS
Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux
It's sad to see how people are so misguided.
I like the second version better. From the linked Wikipedia article:
DISCLAIMER: I'm danish, so of course i prefer the more favourable version. Anyway, the English owe us nearly 900 years of danegeld. (If you pay up now we might even give you a discount for the very handy assistance in WWII!)
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
In an otherwise thoughtful and well-meaning letter, Bob Young incorrectly states opinions that are widely published elsewhere and fails to take Darl McBride's view of theft (versus copyright infringement) to task. Instead, Young reaffirms McBride's conflation of theft and copyright infringement and seriously mistakenly summarizes RMS' ideas.
Consider this part from Young's letter:
Everyone does not agree that "intellectual property" is a good thing. RMS, for instance, has said that he has no opinions on "intellectual property" except to point out the misleading consequences one arrives at from using the term and how it prejudices one's thinking to treat disparate areas of law like property. RMS has opinions on patents, separate opinions on copyright, and separate opinions on trademark law. RMS does not mix up his ideas into one jumbled whole called "intellectual property".
Furthermore, I have never heard nor read RMS say "it is not a good idea to copyright software" nor does young provide a source for this summary. RMS is against patenting algorithms used in the creation of computer software and most software programmers I've met are in agreement with him because so-called 'software patents' do such a profound disservice to their work. As RMS points out in his critique of the term "intellectual property", copyright and patents are not the same, in fact they differ more than they are alike. Copyrights and patents aren't acquired in the same way, they don't last for the same length of time, they don't cover the same things, policy concerning these two disparate sets of laws aren't governed by the same office, and defending against copyright infringement is not at all the same as defending against patent infringement. But you can see how someone who believes "[e]veryone agrees intellectual property, from trademark law to copyrights and patents, is a good thing" would arrive at such a mistaken conclusion about RMS' ideas and whether these laws are well received.
With respect to the term of copyright, Young notes that "[t]he Supreme Court case that you [McBride] misrepresent in your latest open letter demonstrates the Justices think too much of a good thing may no longer be so good" but doesn't understand how he is (in the FSF's words) "making an appeal to authority...and misrepresenting what the authority says" by talking about copyright infringement as theft.
If we accept the idea that property and ideas and expression are all one and the same, we allow ourselves to deny that new ideas are built on old ideas (or more generally, the future is built on the past). The limits of copyright law look very wrong and we champion the same goals as the Bonos and we buy into the hypocrisy exhibited by the Disney corporation. Then we lose the argument we are struggling to make with legislators.
Digital Citizen
The acronymn SCUM is already taken. It's the name of the Society for Cutting Up Men, and there's a SCUM manifesto. It's a radical lesbian seperatist group. Sorry, you're a few decades too late. Pick another acronymn.
Unless you're an angry dyke with a knife, of course.
A Good Intro to NetBS
Too bad that statement is at best misleading and at worst entirely false... note the "over the 20 years" part--the Founding Fathers never intended copyrights to last as long as they do now; it was supposed to be a limited grant, limited as in less than 30 years (and even that, only after an extension, for which the original copyright holder would still have to be alive).
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
If I were really cynical I might suspect the timing...just before MS was making a big push to roll out 2003, as the IT industry was coming out of a 2 1/2 year stretch where many companies were not buying much of anything, just as NT is getting near the end of its life cycle. You have to admit that questions arising about Linux IP purity and a potential liability scare right at this particular time was really convenient for MS. Likely just coincidence, but a mighty handy one all the same.
Fortunately it hasn't done much of anything to stall the advance. At this point trying to stop Linux is like trying to stop the wind. The code is out there in so many places in so many flavors, in so many countries that don't give a crap about US copyright law in the first place. The switch is on. SCO is little more than side show entertainment. What my grandfather would've called a fart in a whirlwind.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
With the slightly pissed off guy. "Use your UNIX skills on NT". It always pops up on every SCO story I've read. Always.
Surely something with chaos theory.
Iceland gained independence from Denmark following WW2. Now look at Denmark, The oldest Kingdom in existence and it has always been independent.
Only country in the world, with that record.
Help fight continental drift.
Announcing... (drumroll)
SCO Countdown
Countind Down To The End Of This fiaSCO!
Even foggy England's government is substantially different from its form in 1784. Some of the changes were "revolutionary", as the Prime Minister is clearly in charge, even when the monarch doesn't like it. While the American changes since 1784 have been, by design, evolutionary.
--
make install -not war
This makes me wonder. Did the ancient tribes of man know about metal instruments? Would they understand guns, or explosives, cities, or genetic engineering? Did the egyptians know why their bronze swords would break when hit by the iron swords of their invaders?
Did mideval kingdoms have running water, magic lights, gunpowder or even the understanding of this? Could all of our founding fathers known that technology would develope so rapidly in 100 years? Fuck no, but they certainly knew how the egyptians viewed iron swords, how samarai viewed gunpowder and how the indians viewed cities. Because of this, they were wise, and from this wisdom they were able to draft a bill of rights. When a goverment begins to go downhill, it's because these rights have been violated.
It's not hippie rhetoric, it's no fundementalist anarchism or socialism, and it isn't a fools game. Because we have the internet and access to more books and media than ever before, we can become, and some are, smarter than they are. You can view a political debate 2 ways; a logical system much like any router or electrical equipment that must be balanced and mouled to certan rules, or you can view it as 2 gods fighting over a bunch of ants. If you believe the ladder is going on, you are an idiot. If you can understand the former, you have a brain and you use it. There's your litmus paper test.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
Look, it's pretty much accepted that nobody on Slashdot uses a friggin' spellcheck, and long-time readers simply ignore the misspellings. But come on...misspelling "open"...how do you do that? Segment, hundreds of horrible spellers on Slashdot bow down before you, Sir.
Hall writes: ".. GPL does not allow a company to take the software created by the sweat and work of another person, add a few lines of code to it and then sell it to make a huge profit."
In fact, the GPL _does_ allow this. There is no restriction in taking a GPLed piece of code, adding lines of code (or not) and then selling it to someone for $X dollars. (1 Jillion Dollars! finger to corner of mouth). In fact, it's completely allowed so long as the buyer recieves the _same_ GPL rights (and source on demand). Why someone would purchase a GPLed product (sans support or other value added) for such an amount is another question, but in fact, a number of people out there do just such a thing, including with code that the original author has changed license terms on and no longer provides GPLed code themselves. Once a GPLed copy is out there, it's out there. Which is a good thing. Despite SCO's claims.
[Major market players such as Mandrake began by 'adding lines of code' to existing products such as Red Hat.]
Help achieve Liberty in your lifetime - join the Free State Project - http://www.freestateproject.org
I'm a full blooded American, and I've always heard the second version of your story. It was always the wise king vs. the greedy/favor-grubbing courtiers. It was taught to me in elementary school, as a reason to always be truthful, so nobody could pull a similar trick...
A statement "by an elder". That's what it is.
;-)
And it's exactly the card that SCO is mostly playing, to get trenched in (former) bigshots to dilute the debate -- and that's only the debate on *this* side of the fence, on the other side I'm sure it goes quite differently and with lots of chuckling -- and step by step get more of their reasoning accepted or refuted quickly and then looked over, thus effectively accepted by the journaille.
The devil indeed is in the details. So they tell you to discuss details. Get it? They do. Not that that'll save them in the end. But surely they get that as well. This is their finest hour, or well at least Kevins
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered SCO UnixWare community when IDC confirmed that SCO market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that SCO UnixWare has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. SCO is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict SCO's future. The hand writing is on the wall: SCO faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for SCO UnixWare because SCO is dying. Things are looking very bad for SCO. As many of us are already aware, SCO UnixWare continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
SCO has lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time UnixWare developers L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: SCO is dying.
All major surveys show that UnixWare has steadily declined in market share. SCO is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If SCO is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. SCO continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, SCO is dead.
Fact: SCO is dying
So...why the heck did SCO allow employees to contribute to Linux? That seems massively stupid.
The site to read when you want to see whatever was on Slashdot 48 hours ago.
SCO now has the following job openings available...
Now pay attention to the date on that last job opening. That is Monday following SCOX's 5-Dec lame oral arguments.
Why suddenly is this position vacant? Some theories...
So, if you're out of work and qualified, a great career opportunity would be to work at SCO!
Director of Financial Reporting and SEC/GAAP Compliance Requisition# 40238
http://www.sco.com/company/jobs/
Type: Exempt
Posted 08 December, 2003
Location: Lindon, UT
Department:
Reports To: Controller
Apply Now
Job Description:
Responsible for the financial reporting of quarterly and annual results in accordance with SEC rules and regulations. Responsible for the filing of registration statements and other periodic filings as required. Duties will include the drafting and review of quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, annual reports on Form 10-K, periodic reports on Form 8-K, as well as assist in the preparation of registration and proxy statements and any other filings. Other responsibilities will include the monitoring of the Company's compliance with current SEC, FASB and other regulatory literature that pertains to accounting and financial reporting. This position will also lead the Company's effort on maintaining an effective system of internal control, and ensuring the internal control structure is in compliance with the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Additional special projects will be given on an "as occurring" basis.
Job Responsibilities:
Financial reporting of quarterly and annual results in accordance with SEC rules and regulations Filing of registration statements and other periodic filings as required Drafting and review of quarterly and annual reports Assist in the preparation of registration and proxy statements and any other filings Monitoring of the Company's compliance with current SEC, FASB and other regulatory literature that pertains to accounting and financial reporting Additional special projects will be given on an "as occurring" basis.
Job Requirements:
Masters degree in accounting and experience as a manager with a public accounting firm and a minimum of 8 years accounting experience. Extensive financial reporting experience
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
You should see a doctor. It should be warm.
Relevant SCO info seems to be coming from Groklaw. Even technical info that seems more suited to be coming from readers of /.
Some very interesting aspects of timing of efforts by Mr. Aivazian that include the following:
"It seems everything Mr. Aivazian does works together. If SMP or vmalloc.c doesn't work, the microcode update feature might fail, so he works on SMP and vmalloc.c. If either SMP or microcode update is crashing, he needs to know why, so he works on the debugger."
First of all I am damn impressed that anyone can over-ride a processor microcode !
The debugger is equally impressive. If you can't find why it breaks, ya can't fix it.
This is very credible and just might sink SCO's claims altogether.
TG
nt
After the successful initial attack on Pearl Harbor Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto uttered this famous line:
"I fear that we have awakened a sleeping giant
and filled him with a terrible resolve"
I'm sure the people at SCO who actually work on the product understand what is happening in the same fashion that Yamamoto understood the value of the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Perhaps the stock price of the Imperial Japanese Navy was quite high on December 8th, 1941, but the owners of SCO stock can charter a ship and drop their worthless certificates at Midway, the Coral Sea, or somewhere in the Leyte Gulf. We all know how this one is going to end
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Bunker/4929/i
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Bunker/4929/i
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Cockpit/
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
Tubgirl is nauseating!!
My comment or his?
Both?
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
Since I got that from a study the PA did on it's own finances does that mean the PA is a supporter of Zionism?
That doesn't mean that SCO won't claim otherwise, or claim that the person that authorized such contributions didn't have the authority to do so. Lets face it, it's not like telling a falsehood is a problem for SCO. That is my point from the first post albeit not well made. I assumed everyone had read the article and would infer that I was impying that SCO would lie about the companies past contributions
Angry People Rule
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
As show in the Sunpoint Securities (SNPC) case, the largest brokerage failure in history (at least till June 2000) they don't really DO anything. They still haven't brought the person responsible for this to justice.
From http://www.sipc.org/release4.html
A record payment of $31 million from a special reserve fund authorized by Congress to help investors at bankrupt brokerage firms is being used to restore stocks and cash that 9,738 investors lost due to theft at Sunpoint Securities, a Longview, Texas-based firm, officials at the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) announced today.
"This case, which is the most expensive in our history, illustrates in vivid terms why it is that SIPC is the investor's first line of defense in the event of brokerage bankruptcy," said SIPC President Michael Don. "The cost of $31 million to SIPC reserves meant that nearly 10,000 individuals had their accounts restored nearly immediately without regard to whether the authorities will ever recover the stolen funds."
1972 -> 1792. Sorry for the typo in the year. Obviously Thomas Jefferson didn't live in the nineteen-seventies...
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
wow :) I accidently slashdoted SCO with the above link and now they are calling it a DDoS attack.
SCO Denial-of-Service Attack, Take Two
you mean, there is 3?!?!?
Isn't it time someone stepped up to the plate and turned this mess around on SCO? It seems to me their code is the one in question, and that they are infringing on the GPL. If they are comparing "their" code to GPLed code, and find that it's similar, wouldn't that suggest that they have been and are currently in violation of the GPL? Isn't this the main reason some consider the GPL viral? In the end, sco will lose everything.
A brief visit to your homepage shows where your idealogy is at.
War is necrophilia.
In fact, a lot of countries might be happy about SCO winning the case, because it would do bad things to Linux in the U.S., leaving them them to use high-quality software at a low price, while the U.S. has to pay through the nose for either Microsoft, OS X or SCO-Linux.
Whatever the outcome, this will not be the end of Linux, just Linux U.S.A.. Everybody else is just going to go on as before.
Unless you're an angry dyke with a knife, of course.
Considering his link includes the goatse picture, it's not terribly unlikely.
I prefer SCUMM anyway.
"Why Subscribe?" Good question...
If you really want to compare ./-ing to DoS-ing, I think DDos (distributed denial of service) would be the correct term.
'coz that's the truth!
they have discovered another SCO programmer
Since when does SCO have programmers??? Ok, I guess they have at least one for each client...
how long until
Luckily in this case ignorance is no excuse!
Should there be a Law?
Too bad that statement is at best misleading and at worst entirely false... note the "over the 20 years" part--the Founding Fathers never intended copyrights to last as long as they do now; it was supposed to be a limited grant, limited as in less than 30 years (and even that, only after an extension, for which the original copyright holder would still have to be alive).
Thomas Jefferson himself said the term of copyrights, though he disagreed on copyrights at all, should be only 14 years later saying 19 years which should be within the writer's or in the case of patents the inventor's lifetyme. Thomas Jefferson's copyright term (fwd) features some letters between Jefferson and James Madison on copyrights.Should there be a Law?
Here's a little bit of the history of political parties in the USA:
WHIG PARTY
Whig Party, hwig par'te, a POLITICAL PARTY in the United States during the second quarter of the 19th century, formed to oppose president Andrew JACKSON and the DEMOCRATIC PARTY. The term Whig came into common use in 1834, and persisted until the disintegration of the party after the presidential ELECTION of 1856. The anti-Jackson groups drew upon the political history of two revolutions, the American and 17th century English, for their name. In both cases the opposition to the king had called themselves Whigs. Now it was "King Andrew" Jackson who was the alleged tyrant.
The Whigs' direct political antecedents were the National Republicans, the administration party during John Quincy ADAMS' presidency (1825-1829). They advocated a nationalistic economic policy (the "American System"), but were stymied by the rising power of the Jacksonians, who were thereafter called Democrats. Jackson's inauguration in 1829 began the period of National Republican opposition and prepared the ground for the coalition of political forces which formed the Whig Party. Henry Clay of Kentucky, and Daniel Webster of Massachusetts became the party's leading figures. Webster was more of a nationalist than Clay, as he demonstrated in his famed Reply to Hayne of South Carolina (Jan. 26-27, 1830). But both men urged a program of tariff protection, federally sponsored communication projects (internal improvements), continuation of the national bank, and a conservative public land sales policy--the "American System," much of which could be traced back to Alexander Hamilton's Federalist economic policy of 1791. This was a program with especially strong appeal to merchants and manufacturers whose business operations went beyond state lines. Clay made the president's veto of a bill to recharter the second Bank of the United States the key issue of the election of 1832, but Jackson easily won reelection.
State sovereignty, not economic nationalism, was the idea which brought a significant addition to the ranks of those opposing Jackson. John C. CALHOUN of South Carolina broke his alliance with Jackson when he realized that he would not be the next Democratic president, and the split widened during South Carolina's attempt of nullification of federal tariff laws. Jackson reacted sternly to this defiance, giving Clay an opportunity to introduce a compromise tariff bill in February 1833. Calhoun approved the compromise and for several years acted in uneasy association with other anti-Jacksonians. Another source of recruits was the Anti-Masonic Party, particularly strong in New York and Pennsylvania. The stated purpose of this strange phenomenon in American history was to combat the supposed threat of Masonic power over judicial and political institutions. It also provided younger politicians with a convenient means for advancement. Among those Anti-Masons who became important Whig leaders were William H. Seward and Thurlow Weed of New York, and Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania. With the addition of two more groups, antinullification states' rights Southerners and the so-called Democratic Conservatives, who opposed their party's financial policies after 1836, the Whig coalition was complete, but hardly united.
Hard times following the panic of 1837 and the popularity of their candidate, Gen. William Henry HARRISON, brought the Whigs victory in 1840 over Jackson's successor, Martin VAN BUREN. The new Whig managers stole a turn from the Democrats by outdoing them in raucous electioneering during the "Log Cabin" campaign--the most tumultuous presidential campaign the nation had yet seen. (This was the formula for the only other Whig victory, that of Gen. Zachary TAYLOR in 1848). Harrison's death on April 4, 1841 (one month after assuming office), was especially disastrous for the party. John TYLER, a Virginia states' rights former Democrat, replaced him and vetoed a succession of key Whig tariff and banking bills. The frustrated Whigs read their pre
Should there be a Law?
This is the kind of article the trolls on slashdot
strive for. It is time for everybody to see this
and admire.
Excuse my troll, but this is a contract dispute...ergo IBM violated its contract with SCO by using its secrets, which could only be derived by looking at Unix. The article establishes that SCO does not have clean hands in this CONTRACT DISPUTE. Two Points:
/. .
1. The SMP code was a different and clean implementation than the SCO SMP and had NOTHING TO DO WITH SCO Unix.
2. The contribution of SMP was not solely an IBM endeavor, it was also an endeavor which SCO actively pushed forward with major contributions by many other people. SCO claims that 'this could not have been done without ripping off Unix derivitive work from AIX'. This article refutes that. It calls into question the circumstances and natures of SCO's claims!
This has NOTHING TO DO WITH COPYING DIRECTLY. But whether derivitive code from Unix was ported to Linux in violation of the SCO/IBM agreement. IBM has a clear, undisupted copyright to most AIX code, but contractual obligations which limit its use! This shows if there is any blame for Unix leakage SCO is as much to blame for this leakage as IBM and the claim that it originated from AIX is weakened. Therefore, there are mitigating circumstances which weaken SCO's claim substantially.
You don't even realize it, but you already believe the SCO FUD about copyright being involved here. THIS IS NOT A COPYRIGHT DISPUTE, GET THAT INTO YOUR FUCKING BRAIN! This is the exact same kind of crappy understanding of the facts that lets SCO get away with demanding a $699 fee for stuff which they do not have an enforcable copyright or a copyright worth shit. I am sick of fucking morons being clueless to this, in spite of the fact that it has been re-hashed a million times on
Picard: Sloppy, damn sloppy!
I would like to put antennas and a high speed link up and offer it to the public. However, now that I am recently unemployed I cannot afford this indulgence.
I therefore am looking for software - like the old FreeAltaVista client - that can be used for a WiFi link.
any suggestions?
comment directly in my journal
That's a fascinating bit of information about Jefferson--by his reasoning, copyright terms today would still be no longer than 35 years or so, just based on our current life expectancies, and that the world belongs to the living, and not to the dead.
Sorry you're dead, Thomas Jefferson; we could have used your help on this one.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
That's a fascinating bit of information about Jefferson--by his reasoning, copyright terms today would still be no longer than 35 years or so, just based on our current life expectancies, and that the world belongs to the living, and not to the dead.
Sorry you're dead, Thomas Jefferson; we could have used your help on this one.
Yea, we could him now. Forget having terms last 'til after death, or even upto death. Having patents or copyrights last more than a few years does nothing to tolerate and encourage innovation and creation, which is why they exist. Having short term limits is what encourages these as a person has to keep creating whereas longer terms may do the opposite. Once they create a big hit they no longer have to create as even their grandchildren can continue to receive royalty payments. On top of that, they can also prevent others from using the original to create derivative works after several years or so has pasted. The only reason copyrights were extended was because Disney was about to loose it's copyrights on Mickey Moose and other charactors and movies and so Disney spread the oil and greased politicans palms.
Should there be a Law?
I'm sorry for being off topic here, but why is this post modded troll? I don't get it.
The way I see it the guy is just a bit paranoid, more or less like me, but I've never been modded a troll.
Couldn't it be possible SCO has planned this in advance? Although I sincerely think they might just have dug their own grave by doing so..
- Voice of Ambience -
- Voice of Ambience -
"God does not approve..."
...and stop listening to a hateful and venegeful [sic] god who is telling you that non believers are heathens ...
...deserve to be killed at the hands of the righteous.
:) ) that I am aware of - is to stop telling others what, or how, to think or believe.
Ya know, I was in McDonalds the other day, and God came over and sat down and told me that he DID approve. Really interesting being, God - omnipotent and omniscient, ya know, all knowing and all powerful. Means God knows what is happening, and has the power to change what is happening IF GOD WANTED TO - so whatever happens MUST be what GOD wants, otherwise God would change what happens. Unless you want to argue that god doesn't know what is happening (there goes omniscient) or can't change what is happening (and there goes omnipotent) you are left with God knowing what is happening and allowing it to happen - for his own purposes...
Where were you when God personally sat down with you and talked about what was approved and what was not? Or are you saying what YOU THINK, or what SOMEONE ELSE TOLD YOU TO THINK?
My suggestion would be to read the bible - not as a religious, "word of God", divine revelation, but as a compendium of SUGGESTIONS for being a better person.
"Learn compassion for other human beings"
"Do unto others as you would have done unto you."
Understand that all humans deserve fair and just treatment
"judge not, least you be judged."
"Do not bear false witness."
"Honor thy father and mother."
I have been listening for a long time, and I only hear the voices of HUMANS telling others what THEY SAY GOD WANTS, THINKS, OR INTENDS. Most seem to have their own reasons for saying what they do, either money, power, or prestige. If people are so spineless, so compliant, so unthinking that they need SOMEONE to tell them what to think, then they should be more careful in who is chosen to do their thinking for them.
"Thou shalt not commit murder."
Interestingly, there is no conditions on that if the bible is taken as a religious document. So where did the "unless they are abortion doctors" or "unless they don't believe as I do" or "unless they are heathens" get added on - and by what PERSON, as I don't see that in the bible anywhere?
Perhaps the best advice - never yet taken by anyone (including me, as you can tell
Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.
"God knows what is happening, and has the power to change what is happening IF GOD WANTED TO"
How about this.
There is no God. If you don't buy that then try this. God does not care about you.
War is necrophilia.
I'm curious about something, I read SCO's NDA and I'm not sure, but does it cover saying what parts of Linux absolutely are not being claimed as SCO IP? I mean I see clear through it that Confidential Information provided by SCO will not be disclosed. But it doesn't say anything about what is not shown. Probably can't circumvent things that way. Because of the circumstances. However one has to wonder.
I mean if say I were to sign a NDA with MicroSoft to see some of their source code I could probably get away with saying. None of the source code shown me was in these parts of Linux or in Linux at all. (One would hope). And I haven't told you anything about what was shown me.
But in this situation does the fact that someone would be telling you what's not there, equate to them telling you what is there and therefore violate the NDA?
Just Wondering... I'm about as far from being a lawyer as is possible.
Or even better -
There is no way to tell if there is a God or not, but there is also no tangable evidence that there is a devine being. You are allowed to belive in anything you want.
HOWEVER...
You can belive the government is beaming messages into your head. You can believe in God. Both are irrational beliefs without proof and without the possibility of proof, but only one will get you committed to a mental institution - and I am not sure why the other does not as well - and through the same criteria.
I still find it amazing the number of people willing to kill others over interpretations of a book that says "don't kill" (actually "don't commit murder"). Seems to be like fucking for virginity - someone doesn't get the concept!
Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.