The Tahoma font is the property of Microsoft, as is Arial and many other fonts.
And there is a certain subset (I forget the exact fonts) of Microsoft's proprietary fonts which are freely licensed for use by anyone who has a capability to use TrueType(TM) fonts in their OS. The collection is referred to as WebFonts, I believe, the licensing exists to encourage people to use the fonts on web pages (and by extension, to encourage use of Front Page), and the collection includes, Arial and its derivatives, Tahoma, Verdana, Times New Roman, and others. These fonts have been freely available for all to use (but not redistribute) since at least 1999...
Well, I hate to admit that the first computer I ever OWNED was something as pedestrian as a C-64... but the first one I ever had to play with was an IBM 1130 with a whole 8 K-words of core memory, a chain printer the size of a refrigerator, a card reader/punch and 30 inch disk packs that held a whopping 10 megabytes of data each!
My watch has more transistors in it than the 1130 did!
Yes, as a matter of fact, I am *QUITE* familiar with 'caveat emptor'...
But, then again, I'm also aware of "false advertising," "deceptive trade practices," "fraud" and a few other terms that broadband ISPs don't want to talk about.
As an earlier poster said, "If they say 'unlimited' they damn well better MEAN "infinite, limitless bandwidth" unless they want to run afoul of some VERY nasty consumer protection laws.
I wonder if the "void for being generic" argument that worked in the US lawsuit will work in Sweden. I would agree that Microsoft should be allowed trademark rights in "Microsoft Windows" and even "Windows (pick a number and/or combination of letters here)" worldwide, but "Windows" by itself is, as was proved in LindowsOS's motion for summary judgment in the US case, just TOO generic to be registerable as a trademark. That would be like allowing IBM to register "Blue" as a trademark because of the long-standing nickname they've borne.
If dismissal is rare, what is a more common sanction against a plaintiff in this case? Would the court fine the plaintiff, or dismiss certain parts of the case stemming from the unprovided information?
Well, this being federal court, the most common punishment for refusal to comply with discovery after an order compelling is to assess financial sanctions against the offending party's counsel[*]. I hope Boies et al really DID get millions up-front in addition to their 20% stake in any buy-out or settlement... they may wind up needing it.
[*] The theory being that it is an attorney's duty, to the court, to assure that his client plays by the rule.
Especially impressive because it was pretty much Berkley defending itself. There were no industry players coming to bat.
... and please explain just how it is that the State of California, acting through the offices of the Regents of the University of California, is NOT equal to at least ONE 900 pound gorilla? Government doesn't need the support of "industry players" in the courtroom.
Especially if she's in a chainmail brasierre. Mmmm.
Hmmmmm... considering my fiancee, this is not a pretty mental image... I'll stick to silk charmeuse, thank you very much... and I KNOW from dealing with her that SHE prefers it my way.;-)
Maybe the lesson then is that the Murdoch empire is happy to get in bed with whatever power structure happens to be in charge in one of his markets.
Maybe the lesson to be learned is that the Murdoch media empire will present any political viewpoint that will yield a profit in a particular market. Considering the corporate nature of the "News Business" nowadays would you expect anything less?
All the posturing and roaring on both sides of the three current disputes (SCO v. IBM, SCO v. SGI and RedHat v. SCO) appears to ignore the really interesting question here.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that there really IS SCO-owned System V code scattered liberally through the Linux kernel. Being generous to Darl & Co., let's even assume that there really might be "thousands of lines" of "infringing System V code" in the kernel. After all, it could really BE thousands of lines and still be a miniscule portion of the whole kernel.
Now, having assumed that to be true, the interesting question becomes, "Who contributed that code to the kernel?" It is a matter of historical record that both SCO (the Santa Cruz Operation) and Caldera (the SCO Group) were significant contributors to the development of the Linux kernel. SCO (the SCO Group) cannot assert that their rights are infringed by any code contributed to the kernel project by SCO (the Santa Cruz Operation) because that code was lawfully given away by its lawful owners BEFORE SCO (the SCO Group) bought the code base. They do not own any exclusive rights in code they didn't buy as the exclusive property of SCO (the Santa Cruz Operation). They bought, at best, partial ownership of the code. Needless to say, any SCO (the SCO Group) code contributed to the kernel by Caldera falls into the same category.
As a plaintiff, it is SCO's (the SCO Group's) burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence that 1) there is infringing code in the kernel, and 2) a PARTICULAR entity (IBM in SCO's lawsuit) contributed that code to the kernel.
All the argument that SCO has GPL'd any and all SCO-owned code in the kernel by the mere fact that they distributed Caldera Open Linux is very interesting in an academic sort of way, but I would really like to see them try to clear the second hurdle of their claim, which is "Who is responsible for the presence of the infringing code?"
The question of whether the IBM-contributed code makes Linux a "derivative work" of System V is also academically interesting, but this argument faces an even higher hurdle. SCO must prove that JFS, etc. could NOT have been developed in the absence of the System V code that they must first prove was NOT contributed by SCO (the SCO Group) or any of its predecessors-in-interest (AT&T, USL, The Santa Cruz Operation or Novell).
Darl & Co. have admitted that IBM owns the copyrights to JFS and a number of other goodies IBM has contributed to the kernel codebase. They CLAIM (and the claim is, as yet, unsupported) that these goodies are "derivative works" of the System V codebase. All IBM must do to win the lawsuit is show that the abstract algorithms were first implemented on some other IBM-owned platform (say, OS/2, System 390, the AS400... there are so MANY candidates) and then ported to AIX after the fact. If this is the case, I am positive IBM has records that would support such an argument.
All in all (and with all due respect to the IP litigation expertise of David Boies, which is to say 'not much' given his recent track record) my opinion is that Darl & Co. have just about built themselves an unwinnable lawsuit
All the writers then have to do is release it under a new license and we're back at stage 1. Someone please correct me if I am wrong?
Actually, a more entertaining possibility came to my mind a couple of weeks ago... assume, for the sake of argument, that SCO manages (somehow) to win and the GPL is declared null and void. They win a billion dollar judgment against IBM (because the plaintiff NEVER gets ALL they're asking for) and everybody thinks that the IT world will return to normal with a few rules modified.
Assume further, that I was in a position to advise certain well-known people in the FLOSS world (IAAL, so *that* argument (IANAL) won't fly), I'd advise my clients (Linus, Alan, Theo T'so, etc, etc, 20,000 x "etc". to immediately sue SCO and request sequestration of the judgment funds! If the GPL is held to be null and void, (which seems to be the position SCO is taking) SCO has been infringing their (the kernel contributors) copyrights for YEARS!... and since the infringement was not only willful, but INTENTIONAL(!), SCO could be held criminally liable... or at minimum face a punitive damage award that would make IBM flinch!
No, it is not selected for its irony. It is not ironic at all... Jefferson, while nominally an Anglican, was an avowed Unitarian and quite devoutly religious in his own way. The specific form of tyranny to which the quote refers was, in fact, established state religion.
Jefferson wrote the sentence in a letter to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800 while he was being viciously attacked by the clergy as a "heathen friend of French philosophers who will destroy religion in America."
The quote is rather prominently featured in the rotunda of the Jefferson Memorial.
Then you complained that HP's patches refused to overwrite your changes.
Au contraire. My complaint about Tru64 is that the patches had unnecessary dependencies. The patches had a sendmail dependency in them that was irrelevant to the patch because the patched scripts continued working just fine after I restored our custom sendmail setup.
Refusing to fix a security problem on the basis of an irrelevant dependency is a very different animal from refusing to overwrite unexpected customizations.
We have constant problems with patches where I work because Hpaq/Sun seem to think that the versions of certain software they ship with Solaris/Tru64 are sacrosanct.
Every time we patch our primary DNS server (on an E-250) Sun's patch stomps on our custom build of BIND. Similarly, HPaqs patch kits won't install properly if they involve any patches for sendmail because we got tired of waiting for patches for 8.9.3 (even under 5.1A they stay with 8.9.3!) while we prefer to run our own build of 8.12.10. HPaq is also bad about making security patches depend on their version of the software unnecessarily. As a f'rinstance, I recently installed Aggregate Patch Kit 5 for Tru64 5.1A. It included about a half-dozen patches to fix weaknesses in the init scripts. The patches for the init scripts REFUSED to install until I downgraded sendmail to 8.9.3 configured as it was during the system installation! After the patches were installed, I had to re-upgrade sendmail to our preferred version. To the best of my ability to determine there was absolutely NO reason for those patches to depend on sendmail being at v 8.9.3.
I started out as a gearhead before I got into computers. It was one of those "gateway drug" experiences... first it was oil changes... then tuneups... (this was in the sixties when tuneups were a routine part of owning a car). Then it got bad... in the 70's I got hooked on rebuilding carburetors (remember them?).
Replace a throwout bearing? No problem. U-joints? Child's play. Replace the points in a Lucas distributor with electronic switching? A godsend for an MG owner, but merely a trivial task.
My habit grew worse... I've done four engine rebuilds from the pistons out. One even involved synching side-draft SU carbs on an old Triumph Spitfire after I had a machine shop custom build parts I couldn't get on the market (oh, the SHAME of it). Hand-grinding valve seats... clearancing rod and main bearings... I was doing it ALL just to feed the need.
The last one convinced me that I HAD to give it up. It was a fuel-injected computer-controlled Nissan... and all I got out of it was a sore back and temporary relief of the parts-changing monkey on my back. All the thrill, the art... the magic... was gone. All I was doing was feeding the habit. Modern engines had made it too simple. The rush of having an engine start on the FIRST try was gone... (SIGH).
I've worked HARD over the last 5 years to break the habit. Some days are better than others. I'll notice a little stutter in the acceleration when I punch the throttle... think to myself "mixture's not right"... then I have to use my "thought stopping" techniques to keep me straight. It's HARD trying to keep off the drug "ICanFixIt," but I work at it one day at a time.
Now you know my story. I'm a humbled and chastened grease addict. I've broken the habit and my life is better now.
I'd write more, but that's all there is to tell. I'm off to recompile my kernel so that it will support the latest alpha-level I/O modules...
The problem is that the engineers are deciding that Linux is a great way to save time and money in embedded environments without realizing that the viral nature of the GPL is going to screw their company.
As the story mentions, the BSD licensed products provide an easy alternative without the licensing issues. It just takes an awareness of the options to realize that using Linux in the first place is a silly idea for commercial products.
I disagree wholeheartedly. First of all, anyone developing code for an embedded device like the router in question must be held to the standard of knowledge known as "an expert in the field." Agreed?
Now, if the Linksys engineers are expert enough to decide "... that Linux is a great way to save time and money in embedded environments... " don't you think it reasonable to also charge them with "...realizing that the viral nature of the GPL is going to screw their company."? After all... Microsoft has been spewing that exact FUD all over the tech press for the last four years or so.
Does anyone disagree that there have been *numerous* articles posted on/., LinuxDevices.com and many other technical fora on the subject of how to develop proprietary code for Linux without running afoul of the GPL? As both the article and the parent point out, there ARE BSD-licensed alternatives. Why did they not use one of them? Could it be that Linux has a superior networking stack? Could it be (arguably) that Linux's netfilter is superior to BSD's pf for this particular application? Could it be that the Linksys engineers (or more likely, their PHBs) just got lazy, careless, greedy... or some combination of the three? Who knows?
The result is the same. Linksys at least arguably knew about the hazards of the GPL. Arguably they knew how to work around those hazards (after all, NVidia figured it out). If they ever read the FSF website or any one of the many README, COPYING and/or LICENSE files included in the kernel source tree, they KNEW the terms of the license, and if they ever read the FSF website, then they knew the FSF is vigorous about enforcing the GPL. When one walks into a minefield with one's eyes screwed tightly shut, they should not be heard later to complain about the loss of their legs. It is an established, proven fact that Linksys has done exactly what SCO has alleged IBM did, but on a grander scale. Instead of (allegedly) infringing the copyright on small bits and pieces of the kernel tree, Linksys has just appropriated the whole thing!
I say let them (and their media toady, Forbes magazine) twist slowly in the hot Santa Anna wind).
Slashdot Mirror
Correction:
Spoofing the User Agent string in Mozilla, Opera and Konqueror is trivially simple.
And there is a certain subset (I forget the exact fonts) of Microsoft's proprietary fonts which are freely licensed for use by anyone who has a capability to use TrueType(TM) fonts in their OS. The collection is referred to as WebFonts, I believe, the licensing exists to encourage people to use the fonts on web pages (and by extension, to encourage use of Front Page), and the collection includes, Arial and its derivatives, Tahoma, Verdana, Times New Roman, and others. These fonts have been freely available for all to use (but not redistribute) since at least 1999
So, where's the "theft?"
Well, I hate to admit that the first computer I ever OWNED was something as pedestrian as a C-64 ... but the first one I ever had to play with was an IBM 1130 with a whole 8 K-words of core memory, a chain printer the size of a refrigerator, a card reader/punch and 30 inch disk packs that held a whopping 10 megabytes of data each!
My watch has more transistors in it than the 1130 did!
They get locked(!) in the attic with Mom in a rocking chair.
No. However, you should expect to hear the "swish swish" sound of Black Helicopters on final approach any time soon.
You forgot Shockley, Bardeen & Britain ... without whom /. would not exist
Yes, as a matter of fact, I am *QUITE* familiar with 'caveat emptor' ...
But, then again, I'm also aware of "false advertising," "deceptive trade practices," "fraud" and a few other terms that broadband ISPs don't want to talk about.
As an earlier poster said, "If they say 'unlimited' they damn well better MEAN "infinite, limitless bandwidth" unless they want to run afoul of some VERY nasty consumer protection laws.
Just my $0.02 ( & BTW, IAAL)
What rolling green grassy hill wallpaper? It doesn't look much like XP to me.
I wonder if the "void for being generic" argument that worked in the US lawsuit will work in Sweden. I would agree that Microsoft should be allowed trademark rights in "Microsoft Windows" and even "Windows (pick a number and/or combination of letters here)" worldwide, but "Windows" by itself is, as was proved in LindowsOS's motion for summary judgment in the US case, just TOO generic to be registerable as a trademark. That would be like allowing IBM to register "Blue" as a trademark because of the long-standing nickname they've borne.
Perhaps you'd prefer ...
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"
?
My GOD! ... this story has Yahoo slashdotted!
Well, this being federal court, the most common punishment for refusal to comply with discovery after an order compelling is to assess financial sanctions against the offending party's counsel[*]. I hope Boies et al really DID get millions up-front in addition to their 20% stake in any buy-out or settlement
[*] The theory being that it is an attorney's duty, to the court, to assure that his client plays by the rule.
You insist on using this word that does not appear in the Microsoft lexicon
Don't you understand? Bill knows what's best for you
</sarcasm>
Hmmmmm
Maybe the lesson to be learned is that the Murdoch media empire will present any political viewpoint that will yield a profit in a particular market. Considering the corporate nature of the "News Business" nowadays would you expect anything less?
Now THIS is a +5 Funny response to the parent ... and me with no mod points!
Yes ... it's called sanctions for frivolous claims under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ...
All the posturing and roaring on both sides of the three current disputes (SCO v. IBM, SCO v. SGI and RedHat v. SCO) appears to ignore the really interesting question here.
... there are so MANY candidates) and then ported to AIX after the fact. If this is the case, I am positive IBM has records that would support such an argument.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that there really IS SCO-owned System V code scattered liberally through the Linux kernel. Being generous to Darl & Co., let's even assume that there really might be "thousands of lines" of "infringing System V code" in the kernel. After all, it could really BE thousands of lines and still be a miniscule portion of the whole kernel.
Now, having assumed that to be true, the interesting question becomes, "Who contributed that code to the kernel?" It is a matter of historical record that both SCO (the Santa Cruz Operation) and Caldera (the SCO Group) were significant contributors to the development of the Linux kernel. SCO (the SCO Group) cannot assert that their rights are infringed by any code contributed to the kernel project by SCO (the Santa Cruz Operation) because that code was lawfully given away by its lawful owners BEFORE SCO (the SCO Group) bought the code base. They do not own any exclusive rights in code they didn't buy as the exclusive property of SCO (the Santa Cruz Operation). They bought, at best, partial ownership of the code. Needless to say, any SCO (the SCO Group) code contributed to the kernel by Caldera falls into the same category.
As a plaintiff, it is SCO's (the SCO Group's) burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence that 1) there is infringing code in the kernel, and 2) a PARTICULAR entity (IBM in SCO's lawsuit) contributed that code to the kernel.
All the argument that SCO has GPL'd any and all SCO-owned code in the kernel by the mere fact that they distributed Caldera Open Linux is very interesting in an academic sort of way, but I would really like to see them try to clear the second hurdle of their claim, which is "Who is responsible for the presence of the infringing code?"
The question of whether the IBM-contributed code makes Linux a "derivative work" of System V is also academically interesting, but this argument faces an even higher hurdle. SCO must prove that JFS, etc. could NOT have been developed in the absence of the System V code that they must first prove was NOT contributed by SCO (the SCO Group) or any of its predecessors-in-interest (AT&T, USL, The Santa Cruz Operation or Novell).
Darl & Co. have admitted that IBM owns the copyrights to JFS and a number of other goodies IBM has contributed to the kernel codebase. They CLAIM (and the claim is, as yet, unsupported) that these goodies are "derivative works" of the System V codebase. All IBM must do to win the lawsuit is show that the abstract algorithms were first implemented on some other IBM-owned platform (say, OS/2, System 390, the AS400
All in all (and with all due respect to the IP litigation expertise of David Boies, which is to say 'not much' given his recent track record) my opinion is that Darl & Co. have just about built themselves an unwinnable lawsuit
Just my $0.02
Actually, a more entertaining possibility came to my mind a couple of weeks ago
Assume further, that I was in a position to advise certain well-known people in the FLOSS world (IAAL, so *that* argument (IANAL) won't fly), I'd advise my clients (Linus, Alan, Theo T'so, etc, etc, 20,000 x "etc". to immediately sue SCO and request sequestration of the judgment funds! If the GPL is held to be null and void, (which seems to be the position SCO is taking) SCO has been infringing their (the kernel contributors) copyrights for YEARS!
Just my US$0.02
No, it is not selected for its irony. It is not ironic at all ... Jefferson, while nominally an Anglican, was an avowed Unitarian and quite devoutly religious in his own way. The specific form of tyranny to which the quote refers was, in fact, established state religion.
Jefferson wrote the sentence in a letter to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800 while he was being viciously attacked by the clergy as a "heathen friend of French philosophers who will destroy religion in America."
The quote is rather prominently featured in the rotunda of the Jefferson Memorial.
Au contraire. My complaint about Tru64 is that the patches had unnecessary dependencies. The patches had a sendmail dependency in them that was irrelevant to the patch because the patched scripts continued working just fine after I restored our custom sendmail setup.
Refusing to fix a security problem on the basis of an irrelevant dependency is a very different animal from refusing to overwrite unexpected customizations.
We have constant problems with patches where I work because Hpaq/Sun seem to think that the versions of certain software they ship with Solaris/Tru64 are sacrosanct.
Every time we patch our primary DNS server (on an E-250) Sun's patch stomps on our custom build of BIND. Similarly, HPaqs patch kits won't install properly if they involve any patches for sendmail because we got tired of waiting for patches for 8.9.3 (even under 5.1A they stay with 8.9.3!) while we prefer to run our own build of 8.12.10. HPaq is also bad about making security patches depend on their version of the software unnecessarily. As a f'rinstance, I recently installed Aggregate Patch Kit 5 for Tru64 5.1A. It included about a half-dozen patches to fix weaknesses in the init scripts. The patches for the init scripts REFUSED to install until I downgraded sendmail to 8.9.3 configured as it was during the system installation! After the patches were installed, I had to re-upgrade sendmail to our preferred version. To the best of my ability to determine there was absolutely NO reason for those patches to depend on sendmail being at v 8.9.3.
Well, yeah, I think so.
... first it was oil changes ... then tuneups ... (this was in the sixties when tuneups were a routine part of owning a car). Then it got bad ... in the 70's I got hooked on rebuilding carburetors (remember them?).
... I've done four engine rebuilds from the pistons out. One even involved synching side-draft SU carbs on an old Triumph Spitfire after I had a machine shop custom build parts I couldn't get on the market (oh, the SHAME of it). Hand-grinding valve seats ... clearancing rod and main bearings ... I was doing it ALL just to feed the need.
... and all I got out of it was a sore back and temporary relief of the parts-changing monkey on my back. All the thrill, the art ... the magic ... was gone. All I was doing was feeding the habit. Modern engines had made it too simple. The rush of having an engine start on the FIRST try was gone ... (SIGH).
... think to myself "mixture's not right" ... then I have to use my "thought stopping" techniques to keep me straight. It's HARD trying to keep off the drug "ICanFixIt," but I work at it one day at a time.
...
;-)
I started out as a gearhead before I got into computers. It was one of those "gateway drug" experiences
Replace a throwout bearing? No problem. U-joints? Child's play. Replace the points in a Lucas distributor with electronic switching? A godsend for an MG owner, but merely a trivial task.
My habit grew worse
The last one convinced me that I HAD to give it up. It was a fuel-injected computer-controlled Nissan
I've worked HARD over the last 5 years to break the habit. Some days are better than others. I'll notice a little stutter in the acceleration when I punch the throttle
Now you know my story. I'm a humbled and chastened grease addict. I've broken the habit and my life is better now.
I'd write more, but that's all there is to tell. I'm off to recompile my kernel so that it will support the latest alpha-level I/O modules
(Laugh, it's a JOKE, son)
I disagree wholeheartedly. First of all, anyone developing code for an embedded device like the router in question must be held to the standard of knowledge known as "an expert in the field." Agreed?
Now, if the Linksys engineers are expert enough to decide "
Does anyone disagree that there have been *numerous* articles posted on
The result is the same. Linksys at least arguably knew about the hazards of the GPL. Arguably they knew how to work around those hazards (after all, NVidia figured it out). If they ever read the FSF website or any one of the many README, COPYING and/or LICENSE files included in the kernel source tree, they KNEW the terms of the license, and if they ever read the FSF website, then they knew the FSF is vigorous about enforcing the GPL. When one walks into a minefield with one's eyes screwed tightly shut, they should not be heard later to complain about the loss of their legs. It is an established, proven fact that Linksys has done exactly what SCO has alleged IBM did, but on a grander scale. Instead of (allegedly) infringing the copyright on small bits and pieces of the kernel tree, Linksys has just appropriated the whole thing!
I say let them (and their media toady, Forbes magazine) twist slowly in the hot Santa Anna wind).
Just my US$0.02.