Linux is not a company. No one's stock is going to go down. Linux will be the same the day after the ruling as the day of as it was the day before. Whether people use it or not is their choice, it won't make Linus have to pack up his Linux and go home to Finland. It won't make any major corporate users of Linux drop it (it'd be so much less expensive to just pay SCO the stupid royalties than to migrate to a different infrastructure). Universities will still find it a useful tool in science and engineering.
As long as Linux has its figurehead, and it's major corporate users and research organizations all behind it, Linux will plough onward even if RedHat files chapter 11 and every single fortune 500 company that doesn't already use Linux decides it never will.
And that doesn't even mention the huge enthusiast base both inside the US and all the foreign oorporations that are not bound by the outcome of a US legal battle.
Just a little fine point - only linux users with kernels containing SCO's "enterprise hardened" code would be subject to royalties in the first place. RCU, JFS, etc don't really touch a lot of users.
Incidentally, GPL is no more non-standard than the clause in early Unix licenses that had no expiration. They were lacking what's referred to as a "sunset clause" which effectively returns the IP of the involved parties back to their creators at the end of the contract period. SCO is effectively asserting that there wasn't a sunset clause on ANYONE's contracts, and that they therefore own ALL Unix code, whether it was written by AT&T or not.
In the end, looking at all the shaky issues surrounding SCO's case (patent ownership, questionable licenses that were issued 20-30 years ago, the difficulty in proving that THEY originated the code in question, SCO's opensourced old unixes), there's really no action that CAN be taken. We're only two moves into the chess game.
Linux kernel developers are quite capable of backing out offending code, marginalizing the whole issue. Most of the technologies SCO referred to are of little relevance, or easily re-implemented.
In the case of RCU, IIRC SCO was claiming ownership of related patents. SCO owns no such patents, but it's possible that under their contract with Novell they do have a right to those patents. SCO cannot exercise them until they have arranged with Novell to transfer ownership of those patents. If the patents never make it into SCO's hands, then the only problem is if the code was copied line-by-line. In which case it's easily re-implemented. If not, if I understand correctly, there are numerous other solutions to that hardware issue.
How about APT Secure, which is the working name of a project to add to APT the ability to verify the authenticity of Debian packages. It accomplishes this via a chain of trust which is initiated by the package maintainers and ends on the installing machine.
Well, he not only chose Cat6 over Cat5e, he also put in a 24 port switch, used two access points when he could have gotten by with one, he even considered the possibility in the future of converting the phone jacks to ethernet jacks. This guy was SERIOUSLY into future upgradeability.
Along these lines, my brother-in-law gets autism headaches where he hears a guitar riff and can copy it instantly, and can look at a row of lockers and say how many there are without counting. Was I ever shocked to be talking with him one day, he pauses, says "48", says he has a headache, and goes home. It turns out there were 48 chairs in that room.
If that kind of autism can be turned on with a "switch", why not other aspects?
As long as the speaker realizes that it's colloquial, not formal, english. Although, the most common colloquial usages reflecting mass culture are usually introduced into newer revisions of dictionaries. I wouldn't be surprised if e-bay appeared in a 2004 Webster's dictionary or something. As I recall, "d'oh" made it into the Oxford a few years ago with credit to the illustrious Homer J. Simpson
Sun Tzu hasn't yet made it onto my "read today" list, but Machiavelli is one I recently finished. "The Prince" was only moderately concerned with the the rights of the people, whereas the main focus was on the stability of the state - the getting and keeping of power. Maybe Sun Tzu is a bit more relevant to your comments, but, as I said, I wouldn't know not having read it.
Next point - politicians don't have to pretend to be stupid. Seriously - those who aren't professional politicians have business backgrounds. That gives them a lot of administrative sense, and really that makes them very qualified for the overall task. And you may be right, Hatch trying to start the bidding higher so he can get the price he wants. But laws already exist for companies to pursue and recover damages from "pirates". And really, they seem to work, insofar as the owners of the content are willing to look for violators.
Currently they can take several thousand people to court, and after due process, if they are guilty, can get everything they have, and, as I understand it, a portion of their future earnings.
Under the most extreme of the new proposals, they can destroy the computers of several thousand people without any legal review.
Another braindead failing of the US Judicial system. You simply don't have the cash to take on a big corporation in the American legal system. It'd have to be a pretty open and shut case to have a chance.
It might be a bit overhyped, but the facts are still facts. He seems to believe that after two warning shots, "pirates'" computers may be remotely destroyed. His webmaster was illegally using software, which would, under the terms Sen. Hatch is seeking, would make it a target for destruction.
I think if he REALLY understood the implications of what he was proposing, he'd cry himself to sleep at night in shame.
Think about what he was proposing: 1) Give companies the right to remotely destroy physical property.
2) There is no mention of any review process - think of what Microsoft would be capable of doing to any of its competitors[1] - legally destroy their infrastucture
3) Software piracy is so wide-spread that it could seriously destroy the U.S.'s economic backbone.
4) A public school where some of the kids after hours get together and play video games - would those computers be exempted? How many caveats and exemptions would there have to be?
5) Organizations like the BSA and the RIAA have sent violation notices falsely (finding OpenOffice available on FTP and mistaking it for MS Office, confusing a Professor's MP3 encoded lectures for copyrighted music). What's to prevent mistakes where people's work is destroyed? Personal files? Financial records?
The U.S.'s lawmakers these days are just too blind-stupid about technology. And it doesn't appear to be changing. Oh yeah, and they're too easily bought by lobbyists.
That is all.
[1] competitor, n. - anyone who produces software.
I thought that copyrighted content differed from licensed content in that the purchaser DOES own the copyrighted content, but their use of the material is legally constrained. That is, the producer of the material retains all rights to reproduction of the material (COPY right) in addition to some others (public viewing, etc) while the purchaser of the material has ALL other rights to the product.
Well, since presumably the owner would have physical access to the device at all times, maybe a hardware switch to disable wireless access? It would do wonders for battery life, too.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux is not a company. No one's stock is going to go down. Linux will be the same the day after the ruling as the day of as it was the day before. Whether people use it or not is their choice, it won't make Linus have to pack up his Linux and go home to Finland. It won't make any major corporate users of Linux drop it (it'd be so much less expensive to just pay SCO the stupid royalties than to migrate to a different infrastructure). Universities will still find it a useful tool in science and engineering.
As long as Linux has its figurehead, and it's major corporate users and research organizations all behind it, Linux will plough onward even if RedHat files chapter 11 and every single fortune 500 company that doesn't already use Linux decides it never will.
And that doesn't even mention the huge enthusiast base both inside the US and all the foreign oorporations that are not bound by the outcome of a US legal battle.
Just a little fine point - only linux users with kernels containing SCO's "enterprise hardened" code would be subject to royalties in the first place. RCU, JFS, etc don't really touch a lot of users.
Incidentally, GPL is no more non-standard than the clause in early Unix licenses that had no expiration. They were lacking what's referred to as a "sunset clause" which effectively returns the IP of the involved parties back to their creators at the end of the contract period. SCO is effectively asserting that there wasn't a sunset clause on ANYONE's contracts, and that they therefore own ALL Unix code, whether it was written by AT&T or not.
In the end, looking at all the shaky issues surrounding SCO's case (patent ownership, questionable licenses that were issued 20-30 years ago, the difficulty in proving that THEY originated the code in question, SCO's opensourced old unixes), there's really no action that CAN be taken. We're only two moves into the chess game.
Linux kernel developers are quite capable of backing out offending code, marginalizing the whole issue. Most of the technologies SCO referred to are of little relevance, or easily re-implemented.
In the case of RCU, IIRC SCO was claiming ownership of related patents. SCO owns no such patents, but it's possible that under their contract with Novell they do have a right to those patents. SCO cannot exercise them until they have arranged with Novell to transfer ownership of those patents. If the patents never make it into SCO's hands, then the only problem is if the code was copied line-by-line. In which case it's easily re-implemented. If not, if I understand correctly, there are numerous other solutions to that hardware issue.
How about APT Secure, which is the working name of a project to add to APT the ability to verify the authenticity of Debian packages. It accomplishes this via a chain of trust which is initiated by the package maintainers and ends on the installing machine.
Well, he not only chose Cat6 over Cat5e, he also put in a 24 port switch, used two access points when he could have gotten by with one, he even considered the possibility in the future of converting the phone jacks to ethernet jacks. This guy was SERIOUSLY into future upgradeability.
There are 3 kinds of lies - lies, damned lies, and benchmarks.
I think Apple will have validity (in the performance arena) when AMD or Intel start publishing benchmarks against APPLE's systems.
[Graphic of SCO's revenue over the past 3 years]
[Graphic of RedHat's revenue over the past 3 years]
Communist THIS SCO!
Now here's a guy who loves his flight simulator!
during his headaches, most of those apply.
Along these lines, my brother-in-law gets autism headaches where he hears a guitar riff and can copy it instantly, and can look at a row of lockers and say how many there are without counting. Was I ever shocked to be talking with him one day, he pauses, says "48", says he has a headache, and goes home. It turns out there were 48 chairs in that room.
If that kind of autism can be turned on with a "switch", why not other aspects?
As long as the speaker realizes that it's colloquial, not formal, english. Although, the most common colloquial usages reflecting mass culture are usually introduced into newer revisions of dictionaries. I wouldn't be surprised if e-bay appeared in a 2004 Webster's dictionary or something. As I recall, "d'oh" made it into the Oxford a few years ago with credit to the illustrious Homer J. Simpson
Sun Tzu hasn't yet made it onto my "read today" list, but Machiavelli is one I recently finished. "The Prince" was only moderately concerned with the the rights of the people, whereas the main focus was on the stability of the state - the getting and keeping of power. Maybe Sun Tzu is a bit more relevant to your comments, but, as I said, I wouldn't know not having read it.
Next point - politicians don't have to pretend to be stupid. Seriously - those who aren't professional politicians have business backgrounds. That gives them a lot of administrative sense, and really that makes them very qualified for the overall task. And you may be right, Hatch trying to start the bidding higher so he can get the price he wants. But laws already exist for companies to pursue and recover damages from "pirates". And really, they seem to work, insofar as the owners of the content are willing to look for violators.
Currently they can take several thousand people to court, and after due process, if they are guilty, can get everything they have, and, as I understand it, a portion of their future earnings.
Under the most extreme of the new proposals, they can destroy the computers of several thousand people without any legal review.
I can't see that the law needs to be changed.
at the right beaches a *ahem* one-piece bikini says it better
Every once in awhile I get tempted to e-bay it. Just out of morbid curiosity, really.
half the US, yes. quarter, yes thousandth, yes.
I was just venting frustration about the stupid legal system, and how, in the end, the little guy almost always gets screwed.
Class action lawsuits seem to generally turn out pretty favorably.
Another braindead failing of the US Judicial system. You simply don't have the cash to take on a big corporation in the American legal system. It'd have to be a pretty open and shut case to have a chance.
It might be a bit overhyped, but the facts are still facts. He seems to believe that after two warning shots, "pirates'" computers may be remotely destroyed. His webmaster was illegally using software, which would, under the terms Sen. Hatch is seeking, would make it a target for destruction.
I think if he REALLY understood the implications of what he was proposing, he'd cry himself to sleep at night in shame.
Think about what he was proposing:
1) Give companies the right to remotely destroy physical property.
2) There is no mention of any review process - think of what Microsoft would be capable of doing to any of its competitors[1] - legally destroy their infrastucture
3) Software piracy is so wide-spread that it could seriously destroy the U.S.'s economic backbone.
4) A public school where some of the kids after hours get together and play video games - would those computers be exempted? How many caveats and exemptions would there have to be?
5) Organizations like the BSA and the RIAA have sent violation notices falsely (finding OpenOffice available on FTP and mistaking it for MS Office, confusing a Professor's MP3 encoded lectures for copyrighted music). What's to prevent mistakes where people's work is destroyed? Personal files? Financial records?
The U.S.'s lawmakers these days are just too blind-stupid about technology. And it doesn't appear to be changing. Oh yeah, and they're too easily bought by lobbyists.
That is all.
[1] competitor, n. - anyone who produces software.
I thought that copyrighted content differed from licensed content in that the purchaser DOES own the copyrighted content, but their use of the material is legally constrained. That is, the producer of the material retains all rights to reproduction of the material (COPY right) in addition to some others (public viewing, etc) while the purchaser of the material has ALL other rights to the product.
It's still up at caldera.com. html
Here's a link to their license:
http://shop.caldera.com/caldera/ancient
OpenBeOS Lives!
As they say, turnabout is fair play.
From what I can see right now, these allegations have about as much chance of being true as SCO's claims.
if( $provider == $AOL ) {
do {
$provider = shift( @providers_with_initial_free_access );
while( $provider->free ) sleep $easy;
} while( @providers_with_initial_free_access );
Where do you think they get the rat brains from?
Some might argue that Microsoft's Trustworthy Compuing Initiative is just PR.
Well, since presumably the owner would have physical access to the device at all times, maybe a hardware switch to disable wireless access? It would do wonders for battery life, too.