Slashdot Mirror
1994 BSD/Unix Settlement Released On Groklaw
davidwr writes "Groklaw has the newly-released-previously-secret 1994 Berkeley/UNIX Systems Laboratories settlement which gave rise to BSD4.4(Lite) (as pdf and text with commentary). This may have an impact on the SCO vs. Linux war."
Is it really a war if one side never wins a battle?
It's pretty interesting to read. A lot of files are mentioned in the settlement.
Everyone wants a Tux in their life.
...does any of this in any way impact the slew of child BSD's out there? I would think Open/Net/Free have more to lose from some "revelation" due to this document than Linux.
a little history
These corporations take their feuds into the courts, where we pay taxes for them to produce justice. Then they settle, because the actual trial completion costs too much and is too risky for their own investment in justice. So we get no return on our investment in justice, but the corporations do, without the full cost or risk. They should have to at least register their settlement terms, especially since they'll next expect our courts to enforce them. The judge should decide whether they can keep the settlement secret, and for how long, so we can at least get some contribution to the justice we're funding. Otherwise, we're just funding expensive corporate negotiations.
--
make install -not war
See subject.
Exhibit G is a death certificate for BSD!
Exhibit..... G... IS! a death certificate....for BSD!
It seems to me that there is a pretty big difference between this case and SCO's case against IBM. It looks like in this case, it was admitted that BSD contained some code that both parties admitted to, but the debate was over whether or not that code was ok to have in there. SCO on the other hand seems to be claiming ownership of code that may not even be there in the first place, or maybe I just missed something.
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
For the convenience of the moderators, please note that there is no exhibit G in the article, and that the poster is a troll.
I think he was joking. The whole BSD is dead thing.
-- john
Dang, even Wikipedia seems to be slashdotted. =( Google Cache of Wikipedia Site
Don't be fooled by this legalease, all this AC lawyer (probably working for SCO) is saying is that she can't understand the document, and doesn't have the full proceedings which would reveal her "insights" to be completely moot.
The current BSDs are all forks of the version of BSD that was released to comply with this ruling. Which doesn't include the restricted files (those in Exhibit A) We've always known they were clean. We just hadn't previously known what it was about them that made them clean.
In soviet russia stale jokes recycle you!
Whoa you're right. I knew BSD was dying...
So, what is the significance of this? Does this document say what it was speculated to say, and will IBM or Redhat lawyers have either reason or legal ability to introduce the text of this settlement into the SCO case at this late stage? I have no idea! And neither do you! But that isn't going to stop us from discussing this!
Expect this document to be the single biggest source of disinformation on Slashdot for the next three weeks as we all misunderstand minor parts of it and then excitedly repeat our misunderstandings to each other. Then about three weeks from now, about the fourth time PJ from groklaw posts an analysis explaining what this document actually says, it will become publically clear what this all means and we'll just shift to six months of people repeating misunderstandings from the three weeks after today so that people can respond to them with the correct version of events and get voted up to Score: 5
does any of this in any way impact the slew of child BSD's out there?
The answer is no. Nobody but SCO has anything to worry about. As Grocklaw astutely notes:
Now we know why SCO keeps telling us the case is "just a contract" case, why it has a penchant for suing only those who are, or were, their licensees, and why it sued IBM instead of Red Hat. USL preserves its rights against licensees under the license agreements. I see no expanded rights against third parties who are not licensees, just the preexisting right to try to sue them, with the same likely outcome that USL experienced when it tried to sue the University and BSDi, using the same lame copyright claims that the judge back then found so unconvincing.
SCO owns nothing useful and never has. They have yet to show any infringement by IBM nor will they ever. The whole thing is FUD, funded by your friends at M$ and a pump and dump scheme, in short fraud and anti-competitive fraud. I hope someone goes to jail for it.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Which just goes to prove: BSD is utterly dead. Not even its death certificate has survived.
Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Spain, Brasil, Argentina, even in the US during the McArthism days. Lots of people died. Lots of people were deprived of their rights. These were overt battles to me. Ah, you meant overt like "Bam! I am attacking you because you are a communist" and not just "Bam!". Ok.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
The University of California did not agree with the USL contention of ownership of certain files. Indeed, they were quite obviously dubious of the claim. Instead they said if USL wished to pursue other parties it would play no role in their defense until it came to searching U.C. records.
SCO may or may not be claiming this is a contract case, not a copyright case. It's a bit hard to follow as their arguments are a bit incoherent. (Read a lot of Groklaw to understand this point, especialy stuff relating to IBM's request for a partial summary judgement on their 10th counterclaim) If it is about copyright, SCO appear to be claiming copyright on IBM's extensions to AIX, some of which probably are in Linux, but everybody except SCO seems to think that SCO has no rights over that code so it's OK. Which is much the same as your summary of the BSD/USL case.
In soviet russia stale jokes recycle you!
Drugs exist. They won't cease existing. Lost this one.
Terror is something that exists. It won't cease existing. Oops, lost that one too.
You can fight a war against some people; you cannot fight a war against all the people.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
That legitimizes corporate black-mail though!
And the us is not england. In england the rich lawyers win, in the USA no one wins.
Its more "fair"
Say no to black-mail tactics (threaten stock value, threaten merger potential, threaten customer base, threaten creditor and cash flow).
Secret is secret for a reason.
For the convenience of the moderators, please note that there is no exhibit G in the article, and that the poster is a troll.
For the convenience of the moderators, please note that the parent AC has no user ID or sense of humor. If any other information is required for proper moderation, I (the real AC) will notify you. Please return to moderating now.
A little history lesson.
/<-rad commands like gopher wiretap.spies.com and zmodem phrack_15.tgz, which is what I and my fellow teenaged geeks were really looking to do. Some of my friends with whom I chose to use Linux, rather than BSD, have gone onto greatness, notably Nat Friedman of Ximian/Novell. (I, however, am an utter fucking nobody, which is fine. :)
For those of us accustomed to Unix and looking to run it on our desktops in the early 1990s, we found that there were very few options at the time. The popular choice was BSD, but those of us who read Boardwatch and kept up with the choice few Usenet groups knew only that there was some kind of a BSD lawsuit that made it bad to use. The details were fuzzy, but we thought that BSD would be a dead end.
Instead, we used Linux. It was much less popular, and way underpowered (compared to BSD), but it was unencumbered by lawsuits and would let us run all of those
I'll wager that, if not for the FUD that came of this lawsuit, BSD would be the OS of choice for geeks today. Instead, Linux is far more popular -- I continue to use it a decade later, with the vague guilt that I would be cooler if I were running BSD. I wonder to what degree the SCO FUD is similarly affecting the choice of Linux today?
-Waldo Jaquith
If you look at the BSD family tree here, you'd see that at one point in time, all Free/Net/Open BSD changed to use the codebase from 4.4BSD Lite, the unencumbered version.
I once had a signature.
What with Solaris's recent still-mysterious "open sourcing", the large amount of cash infused into SCO by Sun Microsystems, the increasingly common yet always vague claims by Sun executives that "intellectual property issues" will become of increasing importance in software development in the near future, and the strange repeated claims by Sun executives that Linux "wouldn't have happened" if Solaris had been "open sourced" five years ago...
One wonders if Sun Microsystems might be hoping that the SCO suit will drive people from Linux to Solaris the same way that the USL suit drove people from BSD to Linux.
More like the SCO vs. Linux joke. Around work, SCO is more of a punchline rather than a threat to a large network that powers financial transactions worth millions each day. :)
The difference is that the USL/BSD "FUD" was a lot more substantial than SCO's fantasyland FUD.
I'm sure that's true, but I use the term "FUD" not in the pejorative sense, but instead in the literal one: there was fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the wisdom of using BSD, at least in the mind of this then-15-year-old.
-Waldo Jaquith
Linus wrote Linux FROM SCRATCH. By which I mean the following:
. html ...
...
A quote from:
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~awb/linux.history
To: Linux-Activists@BLOOM-PICAYUNE.MIT.EDU
From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
Subject: Re: Writing an OS - questions !!
Date: 5 May 92 07:58:17 GMT
1) How would you typically debug the kernel during the development phase?
Depends on both the machine and how far you have gotten on the kernel:
on more simple systems it's generally easier to set up. Here's what I
had to do on a 386 in protected mode.
The worst part is starting off: after you have even a minimal system you
can use printf etc, but moving to protected mode on a 386 isn't fun,
especially if you at first don't know the architecture very well. It's
distressingly easy to reboot the system at this stage: if the 386
notices something is wrong, it shuts down and reboots - you don't even
get a chance to see what's wrong.
Printf() isn't very useful - a reboot also clears the screen, and
anyway, you have to have access to video-mem, which might fail if your
segments are incorrect etc. Don't even think about debuggers: no
debugger I know of can follow a 386 into protected mode. A 386 emulator
might do the job, or some heavy hardware, but that isn't usually
feasible.
What I used was a simple killing-loop: I put in statements like
die:
jmp die
at strategic places. If it locked up, you were ok, if it rebooted, you
knew at least it happened before the die-loop. Alternatively, you might
use the sound io ports for some sound-clues, but as I had no experience
with PC hardware, I didn't even use that. I'm not saying this is the
only way: I didn't start off to write a kernel, I just wanted to explore
the 386 task-switching primitives etc, and that's how I started off (in
about April-91).
By what you say, that would be a bad wager. According to you, more people were using BSD despite the lawsuit. Moreover, you do not consider the very real philosophical difference between the BSD and GNU people. Many, such as myself, would rather GPL software than hand their work over to the likes of M$, Sun and SCO for commercial exploitation. They have all shown animosity towards those who have helped them. I'm grateful for all the GPL work that's out there and willingly make my small contribution, such is the nature of all science. I'll wager that many of your peers made the choice based on the philisophical grounds. But you were the man on the spot, you tell me, was it impending abuse and the desire to not aid the abusers as obvious then as it is now?
I wonder to what degree the SCO FUD is similarly affecting the choice of Linux today?
I can answer that as a relatively new Linux user and someone who teaches newbie classes. Zero. SCO is full of shit and anyone with one or two brain cells more than Laura Diddio knows it. More importantly, if M$ can use SCO to steal Linux, it can steal anything, especially BSD. If Linux is somehow hexed by US law, all free software will fall, in the US at least. High school kids could care less. They want the most and coolest features and they find it in Linux. They are out there compiling on any equipment they can get their hands on and nothing has really changed.
Thankfully, you the technology represented by Unix has made information more widely available today. Thanks to the modern web with great and obvious sites like Slashdot and Groklaw we know all the details, so the dorks can't hide behind a cloud of fog to make their FUD work. Thanks to Google, which is universally used, the correct information is the first thing that comes up. All this talk about "echo boxes" is just bullshit. Today information is much easier to find and you can get it from a much greater number of sources. Echo box is something that more describes a world dominated by one news agency, API, and three broadcast networks, because they all said the same thing and there were no alternate sources, much less first hand accounts, to be had.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
How many terrorist incidents have there been in the US since 9/11? The Macy's Parade looked pretty calm to me.
eh? Acts of terrorism are stable if not on the rise. So, we haven't been bombed on American soil in 4 years? That's not something to brag about.
Story 1 -- global terrorism rose in 2002
Story 2 -- global terrorism sucks. US may be as safe as we were since 9/11 but reelection may prompt new acts
Story 3 -- Rise in terrorism in 2003 over 2002. (Note in the first article 2002's numbers were understated though.
Story 4 -- Lebanese, people who actually know something about terrorim, see 100% rise due to foreign policy.
...
It's all google-able. And if we count those 'insurgents' as terrorist, which we're fond of doing when it serves our purposes, terrorism is astronomical.
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
You remember?
...
...
Sir, my need is sore.
Spirits that I've cited
My commands ignore
The Sorcerer's Apprentice - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
I've got a rock that repels tigers. How does it work? Well...do you see any tigers around?
There has never been a single terrorist attack on any Macy's Parade in history. The actual war on terror is goin' pretty shitty. The mexican border is still wide open, with an estimated 1/3 of illegal immigrants being of non-mexican origin. The INS (now called something different..i'm not sure what it is) actually captured and deported a woman from the middle east who was on a terrorist watch list. One out of millions that could have gotten by. Why? Because Bush is doing favors for Vincente Fox. We have great relations with Mexico, despite the fact that they are one of the least democratic, and one of the largest nations in the western hemisphere. Why aren't we holding them up to a higher standard?
A war on terror is, in practice and in theory, an un-winnable war. But hey, keep deluding yourself - it makes life easier, doesn't it?!
According to you, more people were using BSD despite the lawsuit.
More people were using BSD because Linux barely existed. The Linux kernel hadn't even gone 1.0. It was under 1MB. It wasn't a matter of the lawsuit -- it was that Linux was unknown.
Moreover, you do not consider the very real philosophical difference between the BSD and GNU people.
What you mean is that I did not (past tense) consider the philosophical differences. And you're right -- I was totally uninterested. We didn't have "open source" -- the phrase didn't exist. We had free software. Both BSD and Linux were free. Both had source to edit. What teenager cared about some contract?
I'll wager that many of your peers made the choice based on the philisophical grounds.
My older friends surely chose based on philosophical grounds -- those old enough to be in any way interested in IP and related freedoms. I was writing for 2600 and decompiling and modifying MS-DOS for fun -- wasn't no contract going to stop me from doing whatever I wanted with an OS, or so I figured.
But you were the man on the spot, you tell me, was it impending abuse and the desire to not aid the abusers as obvious then as it is now?
I'm afraid that I'm not sure that I understand your question. But perhaps it would answer your question to restate my premise: we had no idea what the deal was with the lawsuit. Abuse schmabuse -- we figured that BSD might go away (whatever that would constitute), so why bet on a losing horse?
-Waldo Jaquith
Nobody finds it funny that the amount of text differs so dramatically between those two entries in wikipedia?
Especially considering which one of those cases was the serious one.
(bear with me here please)
"Finially, we have legally obtained the settlement agreement [PDF] between USL and The Regents of the University of California....."
A finial is "2 : a crowning ornament or detail (as a decorative knob)"
The reason I bring this up is most of the time I hear the word finial is that thing at the bottom of a bannister on a staircase on on a fence, and what happens when a burglar impales themselves on one (or more).
So if SCO is the burglar and the settlement papers are a finial.. well let the impaling begin!
Sorry to sound like an idiot, but would all this have any affect on Apple with their BSD based OS X?
How many terrorist incidents have there been in the US since 9/11?
Um... about the same number as before 9/11?
Or, do you want to count the killing of Randy Weaver's wife as terrorism too?
How about the killing of all those people in Waco?
Just *how* do you want to *define* terrorism? Because, seriously, I was a hell of a lot better off before my government tried to "help".
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
I see you read my blog.
Dang.
-Waldo Jaquith
Yes. ALL people are drug-abusing and/or terrorists. (ok, not the Dalai Lama, I think)
Really. Think. Give me an example of one person you know (more points if it's a public person -- the Dalai Lama is out) that:
1. does not abuse ANY drug. caffeine and all the other stuff in chocolate included.
2. does not tries in any way to impose its will upon others, by threatening force if necessary.
The prosecution rests its case. I, for one, know of no such person.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
In case Groklaw is asked to take this down, anyone want to post it on their favorite P2P application? I've only used bittorrent to publish, and I don't thing iBiblio/Groklaw needs help with a 1MB file.
I tried to post the full text as an AC, but it's not getting in, since it's probably to big at 119k for the edited text.
I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by
First of all, this post is not offtopic. MODERATOR MADNESS applies.
actually the war on terror isn't a loosing battle. There won't always be terror at least on the scale it is today.
Hmmmm. Let me see. when I was 11 (1982) I was all the time scared to hell that Reagan would push the red button. Let's go futher back...
1950's-60's people were scared of the commies
1940's - the war
1930's - the depression
1910's - the war
1890's - the war
1500's-1600's - the Inquisition
-500's - the Romans, Attila, Alexander, the Egyptians, etc. etc. etc.
Yes, I got it pretty much covered. It is -- and has always been -- a blood-covered world. Terror world. It's a lost battle to begin with... unless you make real peace, which we don't have today (like: Israelis out of Palestine, Palestine and Israel get some common ground about what to do to Jerusalem; reunite Koreas; separate Taiwan; separate Euskadi from Spain and a piece of France; figure out something to Africa as a whole; get russians out of Chechenia; get USofAns out of everywhere but the USofA)
The object of the war on terror isn't to make everyone agree and get along. It is to force the terrorist to make changes by piecful means.
Yeah, by bombing the crap out of Fallujah. This one made me LOL.
A group of people that don't reflect the population killing civilians is not a noble thing to do no matter how you try to justify it.
You are right, but this applies equally to the US Armed Forces.
There are alway other options like full blown war were you go after troops and military instead of average joe trying to make a living. No, in most cases full blown war is too expensive except for the US govment. I'm not justifying terrorism, just saying that it *is*, after all, a resource-efficient form of warfare.
You even have countries like spain that cave in and give terrorist legitamicy. Even now there is a push to clean up the U.N. because of it's support for different terrorist or the countries that support it.
I did not understand if you claimed Spain gave legitimacy for terrorists because of Euskadi or because of Iraq (from which they pulled out BTW, by popular force)
What is being said is that they cannot use terror as a weapon to express those differences or try to force policy changes.
And this is the real stupid part: if it comes to a group to get their claims unheard so much that they would resource to terrorism (because of scarcity of means to fight a full-fledged war -- including propaganda means) they will -- always -- use terror as the weapon.
And now, my flamebait (not really, but a lot of people tend to think it is): it's exactly what the USofAn population-backed government does. It's a minority (3% of the world's population) that, by slaughtering civilians and by maintaing other governments "on check", enforces its views on the others.
The war on terror also is fought several different ways. Some ways might include military action while others might make sure those disgressed have a voice in the politics surounding the issue. One thing is certain, once they decide to use terror as a bargaining chip, they won't get the second treatment.
First: the second way you cited is *never* used;
Second: usually, it's the other way around: the people who make use of terror are not listened to until they make use of terror; then they negotiate, then they are heard.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
SCO has been having a road show in the UK. As it happens, a Groklaw reader attended, and this individual reported to me that one of the speakers, in a talk about intellectual property risks in Linux and how you shouldn't use it in business as a result, mentioned me by name, and twisted my relationship with OSRM to say that it proved that I believe there are substantial IP risks in Linux.
That is nonsense, of course. It actually means the opposite, if anything. I was never involved in the insurance side of OSRM anyway. But I take it seriously that they are using my work relationship for FUD purposes. There was also the Ballmer FUD to factor in. I have thought about it carefully for a couple of days and brainstormed some. There is a scripture that says the heart is desperate, meaning it wants what it wants and tries to find a way to justify what it wants, and I'm only human. No one likes to separate themselves from an income stream if they don't have to. I tried to justify to myself maintaining the status quo. The FUD is unfair, but it doesn't matter. FUD is always unfair. One must simply deal with it. In analyzing my choices, I kept coming back to the same thing. If my working for OSRM is doing harm by creating FUD possibilities, I need to remove that issue. Money is nice, but integrity is everything.
So, I have resigned.
OSRM were extremely gracious about it. Down the road, when there's nothing left of SCO but an old blues song, perhaps we'll be able to work together again. But for now, I decided to try to find other work.
I have spoken with ibiblio about the UNIX/Linux Ownership History Timeline, and they have kindly agreed to host it. I love ibiblio.
No chance anyone will land in jail- But did you see the Wallace and Gromit movie with wanted posters "Have you seen this chicken?" with a penguin wearing a rubber glove on his head.
j00 d34d f00...
As long as popes go, the current pope is a remarkably good one (disclaimer: I am a Catholic by birth) but... no condoms? this order, in itself, killed a lot of people from AIDS, so, no, try again...
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
When was the last time a one-man garage SW shop won a case against MS? I know of cases microsoft has lost. With a few very notable exceptions they were against IP companies that were fairly well financed for litigation, and perhaps offered a few products on the side (like SCO really).
I'll wager that, if not for the FUD that came of this lawsuit, BSD would be the OS of choice for geeks today. ,
implying the lawsuit made a difference in adaptation. On the other hand you say:
More people were using BSD because Linux barely existed. and we figured that BSD might go away (whatever that would constitute), so why bet on a losing horse?
as if the lawsuit made no difference. Which is it?
Now I'll clarify what I mean by abusers. The people at USL tried to gain exclusive use of code that had been written by others in honest and open manner. They not only tried to lock the authors out of their work, they tried to block alternate and original implementations of the same work by the same people, which sort of proves who was responsible for that code in the first place. In effect, they wanted to own the functionality of the code. It was wrong and they were defeated in court, after wasting lots of other people's time and money. That's what I consider abusive.
That kind of abuse continues to this day and has been taken to new levels. Few will fall for the "don't worry about this NDA, it's just a formality" line anymore. The kinds of people who created the closed source development model are still pushing it and still trying to shut down everyone else. They buy other people's code, slap a brand name on it and seek to destroy other code that does the same thing. Microsoft and SCO have taken the abuse to new levels of absurdity by trying to revive the USL BSD controversy in connection with code that has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's an anti-competitive take down at it's worst.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
It should be pointed out that groklaw's robots.txt is currently:
User-Agent: *
Disallow: /
There will probably never be a current legal cache of Groklaw because PJ does not want one. There is a Google cache of Groklaw from the radio.weblogs.com days, before it was moved to Ibiblio in Nov. 2003.
Personally, I always wondered, if our strategy on the war on terrorism is to kill the terrorists, what is our strategy on the war on illiteracy?
The world population is close to 6 billion, the US population is close to 300 million, that makes the US share of the world population close to 5%...thats pretty much the population of Europe without Russia...so its not such an insignificant number.
Oh and a sampling of how the other countries in the world handle conflict and threats to their countries.
1)Russia, troops all over chechnya, with thousands killed, elections in Russia have repeatedly upheld the
people's view there that a military response is the only appropriate response to terrorism.
But the US isnt involved so its not news.
2)China, tibet crushed and repopulated with people
ethnically chinese, But no US so not news.
3)India/Pakistan between them they have close to a million troops in Kashmir, of course no one asks the people there what they want. Amnesty international estimates in the last ten years alone more than 75000 people have died in fighting this region. Again no US not newsworthy.
4)Civil wars all over Africa, from Rwanda to the Sudan,Nigeria death toll in the millions, of course its rarely mentioned, because there is no US.
The countries I mentioned above alone amount to almost 3 billion of the world's population, thats almost 50% of the world, and they all very actively settle their disputes using military means. Its a delusion to think that US is the only country willing to use force when a country feels its security is threatened.
In the case of $C0, those peaces of garbage stole code from Linux and misappropriated it into their software. A theft did NOT occur in the opposite direction.
And they're not very confident that they're going to win, those idiots. They just capped the lawyers' payments. THEY ARE GONNA LOSE! Nanny nanny boo boo.
Most people pick a computer because
- it runs their apps
- it's easy to use
- it's "cool"
When it first came out, Mac OS X 10.0.0 ran Mac OS 9 apps, it was as easy to use as Mac OS 9, and it had a coolness factor. Today, with 10.3.x, it still does all three.
Yeah, some people use it for "real" reasons like [insert your favorite "BSD does it better than anything else" reason here] or they think BSD is cool, or maybe they just want to give Redmond the shaft.
I'd bet MOST MacOS buyers buy it for the apps, ease of use, and coolness. They don't care what's under the hood as long as it gets the job done.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
There are good legal, financial, and philosophical reasons why a developer may choose one open-source license over another for a given project.
There are projects I have on my "if only I had the time" list that make more sense as a BSD release, some that make more sense as a GPL or LGPL release, and some that are probably best left to the public domain.
The bottom line in each case seems to be "what type of people do I want modifying or selling my code?" and "how many people will use or expand the project if I release it under license X?"
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
It was obtained legally by a Groklaw user who used the california sunshine law to get it. It was released to him by the legal department of the University after they reviewed the confidentiality clause and decided they were not precluded from releasing it in this way.
Besides, it remained mostly secret for 10 years--so much has changed now, do you think USL and the University care about it much anymore? I don't. SCO wasn't a party to that settlement so there's not much they can do to cover it up!
If SCO were charged with fraud and actual lawyers were put in jail. . .
Excuse my typographical errors above (I'm the same AC), I just got very upset thinking about how that idiot Bush has hurt my family so much (albeit indirectly).
I have been a Linux user a couple of years and this year I became the admin of 11 OS X machines for the company I work for. Two weeks ago I ordered an iMac (20") for myself (my first Mac).
:)
For me the major reason for buying a Mac was that I get unix fuctionality with it. If there had not been the underlying Unix beneath OS X and the possibility to get open sourced software (Gimp, OpenOffice) for it, I wouldn' t have even considered buying a Mac
OS X is pretty and easy to use but the drawback is that there isn't as much good quality free open sourced software for it as there is for Linux.And there would be even less if OS X wasn't BSD.
The combination of ease of use and bsd background makes OS X interesting to me.
Mikael H.
Since the arrival of Mac OS X, BSD has become the biggest desktop UNIX variant on the planet. Yes, even bigger than Linux.
Jordan Hubbards' keynote
If you take Linux as a unique movement, then it is bigger than FreeBSD, but if you take each distribution (per Netcraft's Linux OS detection statistics), then FreeBSD has more users than Red Hat.
Advocacy speech by Murray Stokely
ONLamp.com: Inside EuroBSDCon 2004
And you do not grok now. No offense inteded.
You made the creeps move out, you did not make them stop. You swept the problem under the rug. And the problem is: making drugs illegal is what causes the situation you lived. If they went to the pharmacy to get their fix, they wouldn't have to gather together in the "place". Believe me, I know. I worked two years as a para in a DA's office. The big drug guys profit huge BECAUSE the stuff is illegal. If pfizer and johnsons sold coke it would be 10 times cheaper and of better quality. The small guys are the ones that go to jail. And the users.
You will not understand the war on drugs until you've had to fight it yourself. Oh, believe me, you only fight a war on drugs if you are an addict. The prohibition of booze in the 1930's generated the Chicago mob. What we have is a prohibition of drugs, not a war on drugs. And it's as stupid as the other one.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
but you seemed not to have listened, so I'll give you an example: Here in Brasil people were thoroughly informed about Spain's election, Spanish popular opposal to Aznar jumping the US war bandwagon... We felt sorry that people died in the bombings because of m-fcking Aznar. And we rejoiced when Zapatero won the election and pulled out of Iraq immediately as he has repeatedly promised in his campaign.
It was running during a month all over 12:00, 20:00 and 23:00 news in Rede Globo (our greatest TV network, watched by 20-40 million people). So, no, we were really well-informed.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
That was so far fetched, it's surreal.
Can I have some of that you are smoking? =)
Bot Assisted Blogging
Terrorists ALLWAYS win.
The only way of not having terrorists is listening to everyone and not turning people into terrorists in the first place.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Terrorists ALWAYS win
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19947
Then please explain what it has to do with the USL/BSD settlement.
This is a pretty important event and, since I'm temporarily unable to reach Groklaw I came over to see the discussion on Slashdot, only to find there's barely a single meaningful comment about the article. There's just a huge discussion that looks like it's been cut-and-pasted from the replies to a kuro5hin article called "GWB's big stupid monkey face" or something. Piss-poor show, even for Slashdot.
Seems like the first time years I've actually seen the offtopic mod used properly.
"The Milliard Gargantubrain? A mere abacus - mention it not."
You're talking about moving to an investigative system, which pretty much requires a complete do-over. I actually agree, but it's not going to happen without, er, regime change.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Implying? Here's what they're currently saying - 13:45 GMT 29/Nov/2004:
We own all your code. Pay us all your money.
H4X0red or Darl's latest mission statement - you decide!
--
Reverse outsourcing: it's the future
He was asking for it.
"The Milliard Gargantubrain? A mere abacus - mention it not."
The correct terms are "GNU/stealing" and "GNU/theft" and "GNU/borrowing"
Here's a nyud.net link to the text version: http://www.groklaw.net.nyud.net:8090/article.php?s tory=20041126130302760
Groklaw.net is down and says:
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
My guess is that "we" are probably out of memory. I'm kind of suprised that Groklaw hasn't been beefed up enough to avoid a smackdown of MySQL each time
Kjella, I tend to agree with absolutely everything you post -- but this is the exception.
People keep telling "we don't negotiate with terrorists", "we can't let the terrorists win", and I say exactly the opposite: except in the most extreme massacre scenario, the terrorists always win. Period. So, let's let them win before more damage is done.
What is left for us in try not to transform regular people in terrorist people by means of listening and understanding.
The equation is something like minority + repression + lack of voice + lack of resources ==> leads to terrorism. Because terrorism is a resource-effective way to get your voice out.
And, being resource-effective, the voice does get out. Example: think about 9/11. Every sane non-US person I know says the same: if US did not support Israeli's misdeeds, this would not have happened. If US stayed out of Middle Eastern conflicts, this would not have happened. If US respected religious feelings and were out of Saudi Arabia, this would not have happened. If all of the above, this would *certainly* not have happened.
Listen. Understand. Negotiate. Concede. This is the only way to erradicate terrorism, while you are doing it. Stop and terrorism starts again.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
And at this point there are 27 of them:
PMDB PTB PDT PT PFL
PL PCdoB PSB PSDB PTC
PSC PMN PRONA PRP PPS
PV PTdoB PP PSTU PCB
PRTB PHS PSDC PCO PTN
PAN PSL
He he.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
s/jusification/justification/
s/Language the/Language provides the/
There's a lot of people I'd like to take off my freaks list.
It sounds like the MEDIA (specifically, the writer of the sensationalist article) caused the false perception and subsequent problems. Read your own post and quit blaming "The President" for your problems. Everyone who generalizes sucks.
The FreeBSD fanboys remind us of that Hacking guy in Salt Lake City who killed his wife. He flipped out and checked into a psych ward. He is suffering from cognitive dissonance, also a common problem among FreeBSD fanatics.
why didn't you just, as they say your side of the Atlantic "get a gat and smoke them"?
I'd disagree there. He opposes condoms, but he does support abstinence until marriage and fidelity afterwards. Which approach do you think has resulted in fewer cases of AIDS? Not his fault people won't listen to good sense...
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
Restart newly the anti-SCO OS named as cleanOS using the World-Not-From-Berkeley-License.
;P
What is the alternative to X-Window?
VGA 640x480x16c, arghhhhhhh!!!
open4free ©
open4free ©
Just for the record: FreeBSD is growing, in numbers *and* in share. :)
Troll messages on slashdot won't change this fact.. they didn't do it in the past *five years* (at least..), they won't do it in the future.
FreeBSD is dying.
Listen, buddy... it's not that we don't trust you (we do! of course we do, why wouldn't we) it's just that.. y'know, all the available sources seem to completely disagree with that statement - unless you count *yourself* as a source, of course.
So, I really would like to apologize on behalf of everybody here in the BSD section if, occasionally, you might be called names like "retard" or "clueless idiot" or "FUD-spreading GNU/troll". Maybe it's because of the academical spirit of the BSD projects that they attract scientific-minded people (duh!..) who tend not to believe in unsupported statements - and even less in statements going against the supported truth.
Besides, I really have to apologize for their complete lack of humour, because you clearly have been doing this for years just to be funny, and not to spread FUD.
On the whole, I hope you can forgive them for their close-mindedness that, I'm sure, is the reason that prevents them from dropping *BSD and switching to GNU/Linux.
Please forgive them, and don't take it personally!
(..I don't need to put an explicative closing tag here, do I!..)
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290