Slashdot Mirror
SCO Invokes DMCA, Names Headers, Novell Steps In
Sparky writes "We've already heard that SCO have invoked the DMCA via 'letters sent to select Fortune 1000 Linux end users.' The specifics come via a copy of the letter reprinted at LWN.net - they've decided that they own the copyright to about 65 header files contained in Linux - largely errno.h, signal.h and ioctl.h." balloonpup also notes "CNet News has reported that SCO has reported a fourth quarter loss of $1.6 million, owing mostly to hefty legal fees in its war against Linux. SCO said they would have reported $7.4 million in earnings, if not for the $9 million payout to their lawyers. Way to go, SCO!" Many readers also point out a Groklaw article indicating Novell has registered for the copyrights on multiple versions of Unix with the U.S. Copyright Office, so that "both the SCO Group and Novell have registered for UNIX System V copyrights for the same code."
Funny, Darl didn't mention it the other night when he was giving me header files..?
Wait a minute! We're supposed to "Take back our freedom!" by voting Democrat??
Who was in office when the DMCA was signed? Bill Clinton. Umm, what party was he a member of again?
Here's the frustrating thing. I've talked to so many self-proclaimed "Democrats" who have plenty of good ideas, but don't seem to cohesively and logically put all of it together. They'll make statements I completely agree with, but then turn around and claim that members of their beloved party are all for those statements - when they're clearly (and publically) opposed to them!
Meanwhile, yes, Republicans are really screwing up the country too, in the name of "freedom and democracy", no less.
THIS is why the Libertarian party exists! Right now, nobody who can do basic math would sanely argue that a Libertarian candidate has good odds of getting elected next term. Still, what you CAN do is research the candidates on the major 2 platforms and pick out the ones who side with Libertarian beliefs. Next election, whatever you do - DON'T just pull that lever to vote for everyone on one party! Pick and choose the people who are doing the right things, no matter what title they run under. These days, you have "Republicrats" and "Demicans", and lots of people in between.
Bethanie: Whore...
Fan Whore
Awesome post
Wish I had mod points.
Didn't your Momma tell you not to click on strange sigs?!
:P
Long ago I quit clicking on slashdot sig links. *Especially* when it has goat in the link text
TurboD
SCO, Novella- pretty much all the big players in this game... remind me of the seagulls from Finding Nemo. "mine?" "mine?" "mine?" "mine?" "mine?" "mine?" "mine!" "MINE!"
Esoteric reference.
"I dislike the libertarians because (like Bush) they often seem to be more interested in the rights of corporations than of human beings"
I Dislike Liberals because they forget (or ignore) the fact that the owners of those corporations are human beings who have rights. The "Rights" of a corporation are derived from the rights of the indiviuals who own it. An attack on "Corporate Rights" is actually an attack on the indiviual rights of the human beings who own the Corporation.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
So Clinton gets all the credit for the economic boom, but if anything bad came out of Clinton era, it's all Republican Congress' fault, right?
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
How is that 'calling bullshit?' He didn't lie. He just said something you disagreed with.
Honestly, folks, can we drop this 'calling bullshit' bullshit?
fs
Sorry, son. Try again. If you'd pay attention, you'd see that I did not 'call bullshit.' I called for an end of the 'call[ing] bullshit' bullshit.
Ah, but what's the use. You're an AC anyway.
fs
Odd that someone with a .co.uk address would talk about the 2nd amendment. In any case, the 2nd amenment doesn't say: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear the tools necessary to commit a massacre, shall not be infringed."
The US one talks about "Arms", which at the time was flintlock muskets. If you want those, that's fine with me. I see nothing in that text about overthrowing a corrupt government. It talks about the "security of a free State", which seems to indicate it's about protection against outside forces.
These days, if you want to overthrow the US government it will take more than a machine gun. You'll also need fighter jets, cluster bombs, tanks, helicopters... If you think it's your right to own those... well tell me where you live so I can move far, far away.
Anyhow, I'm not at all surprised by the fact that criminals use illegal weapons. But what you've got to consider is that if nobody could ever own a certain weapon legally, it would be a lot harder for a criminal to obtain one. If I can buy a "Mark 9 Tyrant Killer Extreme" if I fill out a few forms, the guy at the gun store can have one sitting on his wall. It's an easy matter to slip me one if I don't have all the paperwork in place. On the other hand, if those guns are simply illegal, it is much harder to get one. Here's a better statistic to find: what fraction of crimes are committed using weapons that are completely illegal in every state (as in, not just modified versions of legal weapons).
"I dislike the libertarians because (like Bush) they often seem to be more interested in the rights of corporations than of human beings, but the principle still stands."
Perhaps you're talking to different libertarians than I, but I have a feeling that you might be misunderstanding due to a different point of view.
Libertarians prefer self government, hence the government shouldn't protect you from spending your money poorly. This isn't the same as favoring a corporation -- it's favoring individual choices over government ones. Depending on your perspective, however, it could be seen as losing ground to corporations. It really comes down to a judgement call then: should the government, a small body of shady people mostly interested in power who aren't responsible to their constituents, protect you from anything other than physical harm?
Still with me? Ok, time for a bad analogy:
Bought a CD player and got ripped off? Want to sue the monopoly that sold it to you? In all fairness, you could have done your research, discovered it was a lousy product, and moved on. Nobody forced you to buy it, you don't need a CD player to go about your life.
It's a poor analogy, but it gets the point across. Libertarians understand that the government is fundamentally flawed in that they're not responsible to the people and a minority body making a judgement for the majority isn't a good idea.
THAT said, I still don't believe a free market is possible, hence I do value government intervention in extreme cases.
My name is Dalcius, and I'll be voting Libertarian this year. Sure, some are big-time wackos, but by the time they get in power (if they do), things will have watered down a bit. I honestly think that a little more corporate-consumer rape might be a good idea; maybe people will start caring a little more about where their dollar goes as opposed to spending carelessly.
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
Moderation of parent was unfair.
--AROS is an Open Source AmigaOS clone, and source compatible with AmigaOS! Try the x86 build at http://www.aros.org