So we all believe the MyDoom virus attacking SCO was a coincidence?
Coincidence? No
Red herring, to deflect media attention and cover the fact that it also installs a backdoor and spam relay? Yes
Badly coded, so that the DDOS will fail to start 75% of the time? Yes
Traced back to Russia, and believed to be linked to spammers and organized crime? Yes
Brings down www.sco.com even though SCO had a whole week to make preparations for it, yet attempted to blame ISPs for blocking their website over the weekend, couldn't delete their DNS entry until the day before the DDOS was scheduled to begin, and couldn't get their new domain name up for at least a day after the DDOS attack began? Yes
Although it is entirely correct to not take any pleasure with SCO being the subject of a DDOS attack, it is really hard to have sympathy for a company that had every opportunity to avoid the worst effects of the DDOS attack, but were unable to do so. (Or should it be "unwilling to do so"? It's kind of hard to issue press releases comdemning those "Linux terrorists", repeating your blatant lies about linux and the IBM case, and reaping all of the free press when there's no problems, after all...)
Why do you assume that no bug fixing or code auditing was being done outside of this apparently obscure government-funded project no one heard of?
"OSS's strongest argument", as you put it, is that people who use the code will find the bugs, fix the bugs, and share the fixes. I fix a bug that may affect you, you fix a bug that may affect me, we both benefit; so does the guy that hasn't run into either bug yet.
But Crispin Cowan scratches his head because the few people who heard of his project thought coming up with an effective scoring system was more challenging, interesting, or sexy than signing up to do someone else's programming shit-work for freeand have their work critiqued and graded?
UserLinux is based on Debian (it's really just a pared-down Debian) so having UserLinux install over a Debian installation doesn't seem out of place. The only thing I expect will be different abotu installing UserLinux from their install CDs will be, you select their defaults from the start.
The "sledge-hammering" he's talking about is when the current UserLinux installation procedure rips out whatever Debian's defaults are, or whatever the installer has selected, and replaces it with UserLinux's default -- postfix for mail server, postgresql for the SQL server, etc.
And for the record, the "high concept brainstorming before design" style is one of the things that gave us Debian in the first place. Not every F/OSS project has to be a "throw the code out there and see what sticks" type of development...
You're not looking very hard if you can't find the installation instructions using Debian unstable as a base (once a couple of needed dependancies filter down into testing, that will be the minimum required).
True, there is no install CD yet, but that's because UserLinux is going to use the new Debian installer for sarge.
If you're claiming it's vaporware, why are you linking to an article with instructions on how to install the (vaporous) UserLinux on top of an existing Debian unstable system?
UserLinux will have its own install CDs when the next stable release of Debian ("sarge") is released, as UserLinux plans to use Debian's new installer.
You seem to be confusing "Bruce Perens notes that he has a customer who wants a UserLinux system with KDE, which he will provide" with "UserLinux will offer both GNOME by default and KDE as an option".
This is not a change for the UserLinux project. GNOME is still the only officially supported desktop environment for the project, and Perens has said all along that providers using UserLinux can customize the distro however their customers want.
This is just a rehash of what Bruce Perens has been saying all along; even though UserLinux's standard GUI desktop environment will be GNOME, KDE will still work on it, and will be supported on demand for customers who want it.
I already have a customer asking for Perens LLC to provide commercial support for KDE on the UserLinux platform. [emphasis mine] And we will do so, even though KDE is not the chosen GUI of the UserLinux project. This is an option for any UserLinux service provider.
Considering they covered both sides of the Novell's original "Wait, we own those Unix copyrights", SCO's "No you don't, here's an amendment to our agreement" response, and Novell's "Hmm, we don't have a copy of that, but it looks legitimate..." reply with equal weight, I have no worries about Groklaw's ability to give both sides fair treatment.
Remember, Groklaw (and everyone else watching the lawsuit) wants SCO to give us the evidence they claim(ed) to have. If there's an appearance of anti-SCO bias, then it's because SCO is giving information that can be quickly (and thoroughly) disproven.
To all the people who are busy vaulting onto their high horse, ready to scold the Slashdot community for our apparent complicity in this, don't bother. I get so sick of the holier-than-thou attitudes that people cop when the "Linux community" does something to "make Linux look bad".
First off, why do you assume that the person who wrote the virus is reading Slashdot? Second, how do you know he or she isn't cackling with glee over the froth you guys are working up? Third, what exactly the hell am I supposed to do about this virus, given that I didn't write it and most likely don't know the person who did write it? Feel bad for SCO?
If I were a script kiddie, this is exactly the effect I'd go for; try to piss off Windows users and Linux users all in one shot.
Face it, the "Linux community" is made up of lots and lots of different people, and it only takes a handful to make life harder for the rest of us. But scolding Slashdot isn't going to do anything other than make yourself feel good.
Jay (=
Since we're on the subject of UserLinux (OT)...
on
United Linux Dead
·
· Score: 1
...is UserLinux just a pared-down version of Debian (with changes rolled back into Debian proper) or will there be incompatibilities arising from "slight" differences?
You say, for example, that "apt-get install kde" should satisfy those who want to use KDE on UserLinux's release, but is a goal for all Debian-configured software?
Because we all know that software to recognize patterns in text is perfect. That's why no one ever gets spam anymore!
While funny, the problem with your argument is that spam gets through filters because the spammers don't seem to care one whit about formatting, presentation or a professional appearance, they just want the damn email in your inbox.
When a college student submits an essay titled:
"The Hist0ry of Pan-Afr]1can Con|flict In Resp0nse to the Amer*ican Slave Trade peterson butterfly tango"
that student has bigger problems then trying to foil an automated plagiarism checker.
So if they can get inside of IBM records they can begin to stitch a winnable case together, while if the "Match code or acquit" theory holds then the case is over. So if they can satisfy the initial requests enough to make the judge open up IBM to their SCO discover, then they can begin to make the case.
What you're describing is known as a "fishing expedition", and is generally frowned upon when bringing a lawsuit. The judge in this case apparently understands this, which is why she decided that SCO has to show all of their cards first before the judge will decide on SCO's Motion to Compel Discovery.
In case you've forgotten, here are some of the questions that SCO must answer before they get a shot at IBM:
INTERROGATORY NO. 1: seeks specific identification of all alleged trade secrets and confidential or proprietary information that SCO alleges IBM misappropriated or misused. This information is requested by product, file and line of code.
This means that IBM wants SCO to show show which parts of Linux are deemed to be infringing, "by product, file and line of code". This is "The Code" that followers of the suit have been waiting for since at least March.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2: For each alleged trade secret and any confidential or proprietary information identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1, Interrogatory No. 2 seeks further identification of: (a) all persons who have or had rights to the same; (b) the nature and sources of SCO's rights in the same; and (c) efforts to maintain secrecy or confidentiality of the same.
This is IBM saying "For each item you identified in answer to the first question, we want to know who else can claim rights that information, the exact nature of any agreements between that entity and SCO, and what efforts were made on both parts to keep it a secret." (Novell, maybe?)
INTERROGATORY NO. 3: For each alleged trade secret and any confidential or proprietary information identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1, Interrogatory No. 3 seeks the identity of all persons to whom the same was disclosed and the details of such disclosure. In particular, this interrogatory seeks: (a) the date of disclosure; (b) the terms of disclosure; (c) the documents relating to disclosure; (d) all places where the trade secret and/or confidential or proprietary information may be found or accessed.
This is IBM saying "For each of the items you identified in answer to the first question, we want to know who all you've shown that information to, when you showed it to them, why you showed it to them, all documentation relating to that disclosure, and any place where that information can be found." Remember, SCO not only charges that SCO's IP got into Linux against their wishes, but that IBM did it. IBM wants to see SCO's evidence that is had to be IBM and couldn't be someone else.
As far as what SCO wants this case to be about, SCO has contradicted itself on so many occasions that it's impossible to say with any certainty what SCO is suing over. We've gone from Darl McBride saying, onseveraloccasions, that there is "line-by-line" copying of UnixWare code into Linux. But somehow we've gotten to the point where they're trying to tell the court that they can't possibly find has been infringed until they get their response from IBM.
So if you will excuse me, I will continue to believe that SCO are stupid scum, because they've not shown any evidence to the contrary.
Jay (= (I'm not a lawyer either; if you're coming to/. or me for legal advice, you're going to get your money's worth)
But they must be stupid if they thought their charity drive was ever going to change public perception of gamers or game violence.
Well, if what Tycho said in his January 2nd post is accurate, the final media report about Child's Play was blatantly and irresponsibly incorrect, to the point of being intentionally deceptive:
When this footage was aired, I learned something new: [emphasis mine]
that the toys had been donated by a local catholic school, and were valued at nearly a thousand dollars. Understand this. A single bin of GBA SPs was worth four thousand dollars, and we had four such bins. That's above and beyond the seventy GameCubes the other twenty carts of toys, which at our best estimates come to around $175,000. Then there was a check for twenty-seven thousand. Here's where the depression sets in.
What we - this is a grand We, which includes you - what we did was completely amazing. It was worth doing purely on account of its own virtues. But the other part, what we might call the "Secondary Objective," was to promote the idea that we are not fucking murderers. This is an effort to combat media portrayals. Here's the trick, the dark revelation, the Empire Strikes Back which produces our moment of darkness: we need to rely on that selfsame inept machinery to broadcast our new message as well. They're simply not capable of it.
It's one thing to expect that people are going to change their view of gamers overnight (which I don't think Tycho and Gabe actually believed would happen) as a result of one amazing act of charity; it's another thing to have their hard work effectively dismissed by attributing it to someone else and vastly understating its value.
I'll tell you, though, selling Microsoft projects is MUCH easier than selling Linux projects. The average non-technical business person has some exposure to MS and Windows. "Linux.. isn't that software that was written by a bunch of non-professional hobbists and Chinese Hackers in their spare time, and there's no support for it? What if something goes wrong? We're trying to run a mission critical application here, not some hobby system!"
If you're not attempting to address such factually-inaccurate opinions, then you're not doing your job. That is, if you're serious about offering Linux projects as an option...
But Mr. Torvalds is also clearly angered by SCO's accusation that much of Linux was merely copied. "In short," Mr. Torvalds said, "for the files where I personally checked the history, I can definitely say that those files were trivially written by me personally, with no copying from any Unix code, ever.
"I can show, and SCO should have been able to see, that the list they show clearly shows original work, not copied."
[Emphasis mine] Darl C. McBride, the chief executive of SCO, said he stood by the company's assertions. He said that a Linux expert who will testify in the SCO suit against I.B.M., which was filed last March, went over the code closely. "As a social revolutionary, Linus Torvalds is a genius," Mr. McBride said. "But at the speed the Linux project has gone forward something gets lost along the way in terms of care with intellectual property."
So Darl McBride claims to have a Linux expert that can rebut the assertion that Linus has hard evidence that the disputed files were written by him in the form of those actual files, archived in a Linux tarball that is mirrored the world over.
Well, all I can say is, if SCO can do that, then they deserve to win this case; we can all celebrate their victory by building snowforts in Hell.
[Note that this does not include most "enterprise" software development, which is typically for internal use only. In this case, they can simply use the Free Edition of Qt. As long as they never distribute the code, they don't have to abide by the GPL.]
How many times does this need to be pointed out? QT/KDE does NOT require the purchase of a licence to be used in developing commercial products!!
Then why does their Qt Commercial Licensing page state that you should "[u]se the Qt Commercial License to: 1)Build commercial software. 2)Build software that is not sold, but that advances the business goals of a commercial enterprise"?
I know as well as you do that "commercial software" does not equal "closed-source software", but that distinction seems to be lost on TrollTech ; either that or they need to choose their wording more carefully, as they seem to use "commercial" and "non-free" interchangably.
Read the QT FAQ. You can freely (free as in speech and as in beer) develop software for whatever purpose you desire using QT, including commercial purposes.
Not true; if you do, you're apparently in violation of the Qt Free Edition's license. From that selfsame FAQ:
Can we use the Free Edition while developing our non-free application and then purchase commercial licenses when we start to sell it?
No: our commercial license agreements only apply to software that was developed with Qt under the agreement. They do not apply to code that was developed with the Qt Free Edition prior to the agreement. [Emphasis mine] Any software developed with Qt without a commercial license agreement must be released as free/open source software.
Using the Free Edition, can I make non-free software for internal use in my company/organization?
No. Software developed with the Free Edition is always free software, i.e. it can only be distributed under a free software license. In particular, all the source code for all the modules your software is based on, regardless of whether they have been written by you or by others, must be free software. This is part of our commitment to the free software community, and enables those who contribute to the free software pool to do so without paying license fees. Although it is possible to write free software for internal use, it is difficult to ensure that such software is used and distributed legally. For example, if your free software requires any modules that impose conditions on you that contradict the conditions of the GNU GPL, including, but not limited to, software patents, commercial license agreements, copyrighted interface definitions or any sort of non-disclosure agreement, then you cannot distribute it at all; hence it cannot be given to consultants, employees for their personal computers, subsidiaries, other divisions, or even to new owners. [Emphasis mine] Consequently we recommend using commercial licenses for all internal software development.
And this barely touches on the fact that Qt Free Edition is not available for Windows or Mac OS X, so my "freedom" in developing software is limited to X11-based platforms; I'm supposed to pay $1550 for the privilege of developing Qt-based applications for Mac and Windows users, regardless of the license I plan to distribute it under.
It is certainly TrollTech's right to license their software however they see fit; however, they don't get to charge developers of commercial software for their toolkit and then complain about not being included in a distribution that seeks to avoid those costs.
And Trolltech would prefer you use their Qt Commercial Licensed version if you "[b]uild software that is not sold, but that advances the business goals of a commercial enterprise," regardless of the platform.
So, let me get this straight - he wants to discourage the use of GPL'd code in UserLinux in order to have businesses create proprietary applications that can not in turn be included into UserLinux because they will not be free?
The proprietary applications he's talking about would never be distributed with UserLinux anyway; he's talking about in-house applications.
Example: I used to be a supervisor at Fry's Electronics, where much of their software used in-house is developed in-house; two in particular are "Store Master", where supervisors can track stock flow, place reorders or special orders, etc.; and a similar program called "Merchant Master" that I've never seen it firsthand myself, but I assume that buyers use to manage relationships with vendors.
Given that TrollTech's page for Qt Commerical Licensing says that you should use Qt Commercial Licensing if you "[b]uild software that is not sold, but that advances the business goals of a commercial enterprise", that means Fry's would have to pay a minimum of $1500 per developer per year to port Store Master and Merchant Master to using Qt. And that's just for a single-platform license; if they wanted to maintain a Windows version as they convert their desktops to Linux(1), that jumps to $2300 per developer per year. (If they were to go with the Enterprise Edition licensing, which inlcudes platform-independant extensions for database and network access, those prices jump to $2300 and $3500 repsectively.)
If they were to port these programs to GTK+, their licensing costs to developers is $0. And the last I checked, it's not against the terms or the [L]GPL or otherwise illegal to keep private modifications private.
Thus Bruce Perens' decision to go with GTK+ and GNOME; it may not be in the spirit of the Linux community to let people be selfish with their code and keep it to themselves, but it is within the rights granted by that community.
If he took this commercial-friendly argument to its logical conclusion he would dump the GPL'd Linux from UserLinux in favour of BSD.
A disguised BSD troll are we, then? Because your logic is flawed if you believe being "commercial-friendly" only means you have to be willing to let people sell your freely-given code back to you in a proprietary system. The GPL may not be commercially friendly to businesses who sell software to make a living, but it's sure commerically friendly to businesses that use software to make a living.
Jay (=
(1) This is a rhetorical example only. No knowledge of Fry's IT planning should be inferred.
I'm all for copyright, and I will even support the removal of every piece of copyrighted code from linux.
You probably meant "every piece of their copyrighted code", and there isn't a kernel developer out there who'd disagree with you. (You can't remove "every piece of copyrighted code", or else you'd have no kernel!)
But on at least one occasion Darl McBride was quoted as saying "we don't want that code removed because we want to claim damages when we're through", conveniently forgetting that you can lose any claims to damages for copyright infringement if you don't do due diligence in preventing the infringement.
Not that legal realities have anything to do with SCO's legal efforts...
Errm, pardon me, but who in holy hell are these UserLinux people and who's this Bruce Perens guy?
If you don't know that Bruce Perens is a former Debian Project Leader and the primary author for the Debian Social Contract and the Debian Free Software Guidelines (which was reworked into the OSI's Open Source Definition, a group he co-founded), or that UserLinux is his attempt to provide an DFSG-compliant reference distribution to high-priced Enterprise Linux solutions that can be developed and extended by Linux vendors, then why should I care who you are or why you felt the need to mindlessly babble on/. about a topic you admit you know nothing about?
I'm a GNOME user, but to be honest, I'm not losing any sleep over UserLinux's decision to pick GNOME over KDE because I'm not the target market for the distribution (although the use of GNOME means I may be more likely to look at early builds and see if I can contribute); Bruce has his goals, they're clearly outlined on the UserLinux site, and if can't come to some kind of accomodation with that, you're welcome to not contribute to the project.
Slashdot Mirror
So we all believe the MyDoom virus attacking SCO was a coincidence?
Although it is entirely correct to not take any pleasure with SCO being the subject of a DDOS attack, it is really hard to have sympathy for a company that had every opportunity to avoid the worst effects of the DDOS attack, but were unable to do so. (Or should it be "unwilling to do so"? It's kind of hard to issue press releases comdemning those "Linux terrorists", repeating your blatant lies about linux and the IBM case, and reaping all of the free press when there's no problems, after all...)
Jay (=
Good Troll, but *Red Hat* is the one innovating here.
I'll be sure to tell the Debian project that the way they've been doing things for the past 10 years is now an "innovation" from Red Hat.
Jay (=
Why do you assume that no bug fixing or code auditing was being done outside of this apparently obscure government-funded project no one heard of?
"OSS's strongest argument", as you put it, is that people who use the code will find the bugs, fix the bugs, and share the fixes. I fix a bug that may affect you, you fix a bug that may affect me, we both benefit; so does the guy that hasn't run into either bug yet.
But Crispin Cowan scratches his head because the few people who heard of his project thought coming up with an effective scoring system was more challenging, interesting, or sexy than signing up to do someone else's programming shit-work for free and have their work critiqued and graded?
And he wonders why his project was a failure?
Jay (=
UserLinux is based on Debian (it's really just a pared-down Debian) so having UserLinux install over a Debian installation doesn't seem out of place. The only thing I expect will be different abotu installing UserLinux from their install CDs will be, you select their defaults from the start.
The "sledge-hammering" he's talking about is when the current UserLinux installation procedure rips out whatever Debian's defaults are, or whatever the installer has selected, and replaces it with UserLinux's default -- postfix for mail server, postgresql for the SQL server, etc.
And for the record, the "high concept brainstorming before design" style is one of the things that gave us Debian in the first place. Not every F/OSS project has to be a "throw the code out there and see what sticks" type of development...
Jay (=
I haven't seen Perens Vaporware yet.
You're not looking very hard if you can't find the installation instructions using Debian unstable as a base (once a couple of needed dependancies filter down into testing, that will be the minimum required).
True, there is no install CD yet, but that's because UserLinux is going to use the new Debian installer for sarge.
Jay (=
...if UserLinux is ever more than VaporWare.
If you're claiming it's vaporware, why are you linking to an article with instructions on how to install the (vaporous) UserLinux on top of an existing Debian unstable system?
UserLinux will have its own install CDs when the next stable release of Debian ("sarge") is released, as UserLinux plans to use Debian's new installer.
Jay (=
You seem to be confusing "Bruce Perens notes that he has a customer who wants a UserLinux system with KDE, which he will provide" with "UserLinux will offer both GNOME by default and KDE as an option".
This is not a change for the UserLinux project. GNOME is still the only officially supported desktop environment for the project, and Perens has said all along that providers using UserLinux can customize the distro however their customers want.
Jay (=
This is just a rehash of what Bruce Perens has been saying all along; even though UserLinux's standard GUI desktop environment will be GNOME, KDE will still work on it, and will be supported on demand for customers who want it.
So really, nothing has changed.
Jay (=
Considering they covered both sides of the Novell's original "Wait, we own those Unix copyrights", SCO's "No you don't, here's an amendment to our agreement" response, and Novell's "Hmm, we don't have a copy of that, but it looks legitimate..." reply with equal weight, I have no worries about Groklaw's ability to give both sides fair treatment.
Remember, Groklaw (and everyone else watching the lawsuit) wants SCO to give us the evidence they claim(ed) to have. If there's an appearance of anti-SCO bias, then it's because SCO is giving information that can be quickly (and thoroughly) disproven.
Jay (=
Yes, because having a major hardware manufacturer basically distributing an ad for your university's computing department isn't enough of a perk... :)
Jay (=
To all the people who are busy vaulting onto their high horse, ready to scold the Slashdot community for our apparent complicity in this, don't bother. I get so sick of the holier-than-thou attitudes that people cop when the "Linux community" does something to "make Linux look bad".
First off, why do you assume that the person who wrote the virus is reading Slashdot?
Second, how do you know he or she isn't cackling with glee over the froth you guys are working up?
Third, what exactly the hell am I supposed to do about this virus, given that I didn't write it and most likely don't know the person who did write it? Feel bad for SCO?
If I were a script kiddie, this is exactly the effect I'd go for; try to piss off Windows users and Linux users all in one shot.
Face it, the "Linux community" is made up of lots and lots of different people, and it only takes a handful to make life harder for the rest of us. But scolding Slashdot isn't going to do anything other than make yourself feel good.
Jay (=
...is UserLinux just a pared-down version of Debian (with changes rolled back into Debian proper) or will there be incompatibilities arising from "slight" differences?
You say, for example, that "apt-get install kde" should satisfy those who want to use KDE on UserLinux's release, but is a goal for all Debian-configured software?
Jay (=
Because we all know that software to recognize patterns in text is perfect. That's why no one ever gets spam anymore!
While funny, the problem with your argument is that spam gets through filters because the spammers don't seem to care one whit about formatting, presentation or a professional appearance, they just want the damn email in your inbox.
When a college student submits an essay titled:
"The Hist0ry of Pan-Afr]1can Con|flict In Resp0nse to the Amer*ican Slave Trade peterson butterfly tango"
that student has bigger problems then trying to foil an automated plagiarism checker.
Jay (=
So if they can get inside of IBM records they can begin to stitch a winnable case together, while if the "Match code or acquit" theory holds then the case is over. So if they can satisfy the initial requests enough to make the judge open up IBM to their SCO discover, then they can begin to make the case.
/. or me for legal advice, you're going to get your money's worth)
What you're describing is known as a "fishing expedition", and is generally frowned upon when bringing a lawsuit. The judge in this case apparently understands this, which is why she decided that SCO has to show all of their cards first before the judge will decide on SCO's Motion to Compel Discovery.
In case you've forgotten, here are some of the questions that SCO must answer before they get a shot at IBM:
INTERROGATORY NO. 1: seeks specific identification of all alleged trade secrets and confidential or proprietary information that SCO alleges IBM misappropriated or misused. This information is requested by product, file and line of code.
This means that IBM wants SCO to show show which parts of Linux are deemed to be infringing, "by product, file and line of code". This is "The Code" that followers of the suit have been waiting for since at least March.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2: For each alleged trade secret and any confidential or proprietary information identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1, Interrogatory No. 2 seeks further identification of: (a) all persons who have or had rights to the same; (b) the nature and sources of SCO's rights in the same; and (c) efforts to maintain secrecy or confidentiality of the same.
This is IBM saying "For each item you identified in answer to the first question, we want to know who else can claim rights that information, the exact nature of any agreements between that entity and SCO, and what efforts were made on both parts to keep it a secret." (Novell, maybe?)
INTERROGATORY NO. 3: For each alleged trade secret and any confidential or proprietary information identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1, Interrogatory No. 3 seeks the identity of all persons to whom the same was disclosed and the details of such disclosure. In particular, this interrogatory seeks: (a) the date of disclosure; (b) the terms of disclosure; (c) the documents relating to disclosure; (d) all places where the trade secret and/or confidential or proprietary information may be found or accessed.
This is IBM saying "For each of the items you identified in answer to the first question, we want to know who all you've shown that information to, when you showed it to them, why you showed it to them, all documentation relating to that disclosure, and any place where that information can be found." Remember, SCO not only charges that SCO's IP got into Linux against their wishes, but that IBM did it. IBM wants to see SCO's evidence that is had to be IBM and couldn't be someone else.
As far as what SCO wants this case to be about, SCO has contradicted itself on so many occasions that it's impossible to say with any certainty what SCO is suing over. We've gone from Darl McBride saying, on several occasions, that there is "line-by-line" copying of UnixWare code into Linux. But somehow we've gotten to the point where they're trying to tell the court that they can't possibly find has been infringed until they get their response from IBM.
So if you will excuse me, I will continue to believe that SCO are stupid scum, because they've not shown any evidence to the contrary.
Jay (=
(I'm not a lawyer either; if you're coming to
Honestly, some days I just want to march up to my elected leaders and throttle their necks.
And another note goes into Anonymous Coward's FBI file...
Jay (=
Well, if what Tycho said in his January 2nd post is accurate, the final media report about Child's Play was blatantly and irresponsibly incorrect, to the point of being intentionally deceptive:
It's one thing to expect that people are going to change their view of gamers overnight (which I don't think Tycho and Gabe actually believed would happen) as a result of one amazing act of charity; it's another thing to have their hard work effectively dismissed by attributing it to someone else and vastly understating its value.
Jay (=
I'll tell you, though, selling Microsoft projects is MUCH easier than selling Linux projects. The average non-technical business person has some exposure to MS and Windows. "Linux.. isn't that software that was written by a bunch of non-professional hobbists and Chinese Hackers in their spare time, and there's no support for it? What if something goes wrong? We're trying to run a mission critical application here, not some hobby system!"
And you pointed out that Linux is supported by such fly-by-night operations as IBM, Novell, Hewlett-Packard, and RedHat, right?
If you're not attempting to address such factually-inaccurate opinions, then you're not doing your job. That is, if you're serious about offering Linux projects as an option...
Jay (=
So Darl McBride claims to have a Linux expert that can rebut the assertion that Linus has hard evidence that the disputed files were written by him in the form of those actual files, archived in a Linux tarball that is mirrored the world over.
Well, all I can say is, if SCO can do that, then they deserve to win this case; we can all celebrate their victory by building snowforts in Hell.
Jay (=
...I was wondering why the "KDE in Userlinux" argument was getting quiet, so I went back to the home page, and we have a good SCO story!
/. flamewar quota for the rest of the year is met!
Now all we need is a good emacs vs. vi article and our
Jay (=
[Note that this does not include most "enterprise" software development, which is typically for internal use only. In this case, they can simply use the Free Edition of Qt. As long as they never distribute the code, they don't have to abide by the GPL.]
TrollTech doesn't believe so, according to TrollTech's own FAQ.
Note that last sentence: "Consequently we recommend using commercial licenses for all internal software development."
Jay (=
How many times does this need to be pointed out? QT/KDE does NOT require the purchase of a licence to be used in developing commercial products!!
Then why does their Qt Commercial Licensing page state that you should "[u]se the Qt Commercial License to: 1)Build commercial software. 2)Build software that is not sold, but that advances the business goals of a commercial enterprise"?
I know as well as you do that "commercial software" does not equal "closed-source software", but that distinction seems to be lost on TrollTech ; either that or they need to choose their wording more carefully, as they seem to use "commercial" and "non-free" interchangably.
Read the QT FAQ. You can freely (free as in speech and as in beer) develop software for whatever purpose you desire using QT, including commercial purposes.
Not true; if you do, you're apparently in violation of the Qt Free Edition's license. From that selfsame FAQ:
And this barely touches on the fact that Qt Free Edition is not available for Windows or Mac OS X, so my "freedom" in developing software is limited to X11-based platforms; I'm supposed to pay $1550 for the privilege of developing Qt-based applications for Mac and Windows users, regardless of the license I plan to distribute it under.
It is certainly TrollTech's right to license their software however they see fit; however, they don't get to charge developers of commercial software for their toolkit and then complain about not being included in a distribution that seeks to avoid those costs.
Jay (=
And you can write closed-source in-house apps with for free qith Qt just fine! GPL allows that!
But the Qt Free Edition isn't available for any platform other than Unix/Linux; which means your GPL-licensed application has to use the non-GPL-licensed versions of Qt if you plan to port it to Mac OS X or Windows.
And Trolltech would prefer you use their Qt Commercial Licensed version if you "[b]uild software that is not sold, but that advances the business goals of a commercial enterprise," regardless of the platform.
Jay (=
So, let me get this straight - he wants to discourage the use of GPL'd code in UserLinux in order to have businesses create proprietary applications that can not in turn be included into UserLinux because they will not be free?
The proprietary applications he's talking about would never be distributed with UserLinux anyway; he's talking about in-house applications.
Example: I used to be a supervisor at Fry's Electronics, where much of their software used in-house is developed in-house; two in particular are "Store Master", where supervisors can track stock flow, place reorders or special orders, etc.; and a similar program called "Merchant Master" that I've never seen it firsthand myself, but I assume that buyers use to manage relationships with vendors.
Given that TrollTech's page for Qt Commerical Licensing says that you should use Qt Commercial Licensing if you "[b]uild software that is not sold, but that advances the business goals of a commercial enterprise", that means Fry's would have to pay a minimum of $1500 per developer per year to port Store Master and Merchant Master to using Qt. And that's just for a single-platform license; if they wanted to maintain a Windows version as they convert their desktops to Linux(1), that jumps to $2300 per developer per year. (If they were to go with the Enterprise Edition licensing, which inlcudes platform-independant extensions for database and network access, those prices jump to $2300 and $3500 repsectively.)
If they were to port these programs to GTK+, their licensing costs to developers is $0. And the last I checked, it's not against the terms or the [L]GPL or otherwise illegal to keep private modifications private.
Thus Bruce Perens' decision to go with GTK+ and GNOME; it may not be in the spirit of the Linux community to let people be selfish with their code and keep it to themselves, but it is within the rights granted by that community.
If he took this commercial-friendly argument to its logical conclusion he would dump the GPL'd Linux from UserLinux in favour of BSD.
A disguised BSD troll are we, then? Because your logic is flawed if you believe being "commercial-friendly" only means you have to be willing to let people sell your freely-given code back to you in a proprietary system. The GPL may not be commercially friendly to businesses who sell software to make a living, but it's sure commerically friendly to businesses that use software to make a living.
Jay (=
(1) This is a rhetorical example only. No knowledge of Fry's IT planning should be inferred.
I'm all for copyright, and I will even support the removal of every piece of copyrighted code from linux.
You probably meant "every piece of their copyrighted code", and there isn't a kernel developer out there who'd disagree with you. (You can't remove "every piece of copyrighted code", or else you'd have no kernel!)
But on at least one occasion Darl McBride was quoted as saying "we don't want that code removed because we want to claim damages when we're through", conveniently forgetting that you can lose any claims to damages for copyright infringement if you don't do due diligence in preventing the infringement.
Not that legal realities have anything to do with SCO's legal efforts...
Jay (=
Errm, pardon me, but who in holy hell are these UserLinux people and who's this Bruce Perens guy?
/. about a topic you admit you know nothing about?
If you don't know that Bruce Perens is a former Debian Project Leader and the primary author for the Debian Social Contract and the Debian Free Software Guidelines (which was reworked into the OSI's Open Source Definition, a group he co-founded), or that UserLinux is his attempt to provide an DFSG-compliant reference distribution to high-priced Enterprise Linux solutions that can be developed and extended by Linux vendors, then why should I care who you are or why you felt the need to mindlessly babble on
I'm a GNOME user, but to be honest, I'm not losing any sleep over UserLinux's decision to pick GNOME over KDE because I'm not the target market for the distribution (although the use of GNOME means I may be more likely to look at early builds and see if I can contribute); Bruce has his goals, they're clearly outlined on the UserLinux site, and if can't come to some kind of accomodation with that, you're welcome to not contribute to the project.
Jay (=