When SCO "revoked"[1] IBM's license, they rattled their sabers at IBM's customers who were already using AIX. It's reasonable to think that they will make the same threats against IRIX users.
Now suppose that SCO manages to make this stick. How can we ever again have confidence in proprietary licenses, if the customer can have its license revoked through no fault of its own, but through the fault (real or alleged) of its vendors? Or its vendor's vendor? Or its vendor's vendor's vendor's vendor, which turns out to be some small software house in Middle of Nowhere, Idaho, which the customer in question never even heard of?
The GPL, OTOH, specifically disclaims any right to terminate the rights of sublicensees:
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
---------
[1] Predicated, of course, on proving that IBM actually breached its license, but SCO would rather gloss over that unimportant detail.
an example : in the 1800s, Paraguay was a GREAT , RICH country. so great and rich that it was threatening England ! so england financed a war and created reasons (remember the US report on Iraq weapons ? ) so Brazil could fight Paraguay. the war that destroied Paraguay and made Brazil forever knee deep in debts...
The impression that I got from reading about the War of the Triple Alliance was that "Mariscal" Solano Lopez of Paraguay was a vainglorious fool. One only needs a map of South America to see that if (1) you're Paraguay and (2) you're at war with Brazil, then (3) you'd better not piss off Argentina.
And Lopez, well, he pissed off Argentina. With enemies on all sides but the West, and the Gran Chaco and the Andes in that direction, Paraguay didn't have a chance.
The Texas Constitution still has the provision to divide the state into five smaller ones. It does require the consent of Congress, though, and I don't know if that's still in force; there'd be no particular reason to repeal it, though, even with the "readmission" after The Woah.
There are more special IP ranges than the private network ranges in RFC 1918. They are documented in RFC 3330. The one in question is:
169.254.0.0/16 - This is the "link local" block. It is allocated for communication between hosts on a single link. Hosts obtain these addresses by auto-configuration, such as when a DHCP server may not be found.
(C'mon, "viri" I can understand, but who's the knucklehead that thought up "virii", and why does this spurious plural spread as if it were itself a virus?)
As soon as they know what code is "dirty", if it even is, it is going to be removed.
Thereby depriving SCO of their revenue stream. They are trying to cast a cloud of FUD over the entire Linux and GNU codebase, to establish de facto ownership of the whole enchilada.
Yes, it's like slapping a lien on your house over a couple of stolen teacups. What remains to be seen is whether the court will allow it. Can any lawyers comment? (Lawyers, please, not the zillions of IANALs that inhabit these parts.)
[SCO] want to collect royalties. They cannot collect royalties if the code in question is removed and replaced with "clean" code, which is what will happen within minutes of them announcing exactly which lines of code are in violation.
McBunkum has admitted to exactly this in the IBM-buy-us-out article:
The open-source community, however, won't be be given an opportunity to remove any offending code and replace it with new material, he [McBunkum] said. Instead, damages will continue to be sought.
Is there any doubt left that the judge needs to smack this guy down like the liar and FUDster that he is?
Look, maybe some obscure check-box that says the equivalent of "Yes, please spam me!" might hold up in court. But in terms of public goodwill, the only rule that counts is the golden one, and I don't mean "he who has the gold makes the rules."
Muerto? El latín? Quién lo dice? Cómo puedes decir que el latín está muerto, cuando puedes encontrar Slashdoten latín? O si no te gusta el latín de la Castilla, quizás preferirías Slashdot en el latín de Cataluña, o en el latín de Portugal.
Me quedo callado sobre tu uso de "teh" en tus quejas sobre "proper modern Engl ^H^H^H^H American"....
There is some good in letting a copyright extend beyond the author's death. An author may die with children still not yet grown, and his royalties can provide for them. Life plus 20 or maybe 25 should be enough for this.
Some posthumous works may come out under a life-plus-X term that might have been cast aside under a life-plus-zero term. Life plus 50 is probably more than enough.
Life plus 70 is absurd and our so-called elected officials should be ashamed of going along with it. And may Sonny Bono *not* rest in peace.
Consider my ongoing project to translate Nethack into something resembling Spanish. Gettext offers support for plurals, but not for gender; it provides no way to make sure that a blessed sword (espada) is bendita, but a blessed helmet (yelmo) is bendito. Languages with noun cases, such as German, Finnish, and Russian, have an additional problem: a monster is a subject when it hits you and a direct object when you hit it. Furthermore, sometimes Nethack must parse user input, as when making a wish, and differing word order and words with more than one meaning create lots of pitfalls there. Finally, Nethack is laden with jokes and puns, and many of these don't survive translation.
Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe, P.A.
Cupertino, CA
15 September 2002
Dear Slashdot Editors:
Your article on building Macintoshes is a threat to the valuable intellectual property rights of our client, Apple Computer. You are hereby ordered to cease and desist publication of this article, or face legal action.
All your Mac are belong to us.
Sincerely,
I. Will Cheatham, Esq.
Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe, P.A.
Slashdot Mirror
I clicked, and Konqueror popped up a progress dialog. Which made no progress.
Is it slashdotted already? Or is SCUM experiencing another of its convienient DDOS attacks?
Now suppose that SCO manages to make this stick. How can we ever again have confidence in proprietary licenses, if the customer can have its license revoked through no fault of its own, but through the fault (real or alleged) of its vendors? Or its vendor's vendor? Or its vendor's vendor's vendor's vendor, which turns out to be some small software house in Middle of Nowhere, Idaho, which the customer in question never even heard of?
The GPL, OTOH, specifically disclaims any right to terminate the rights of sublicensees:
---------
[1] Predicated, of course, on proving that IBM actually breached its license, but SCO would rather gloss over that unimportant detail.
2. Tiny
3. Virtually no links to anything
4. Very small amount of information
5. Profit!
The impression that I got from reading about the War of the Triple Alliance was that "Mariscal" Solano Lopez of Paraguay was a vainglorious fool. One only needs a map of South America to see that if (1) you're Paraguay and (2) you're at war with Brazil, then (3) you'd better not piss off Argentina.
And Lopez, well, he pissed off Argentina. With enemies on all sides but the West, and the Gran Chaco and the Andes in that direction, Paraguay didn't have a chance.
The Texas Constitution still has the provision to divide the state into five smaller ones. It does require the consent of Congress, though, and I don't know if that's still in force; there'd be no particular reason to repeal it, though, even with the "readmission" after The Woah.
As filesharing traffic fell 15%, sales by the RIAA's members likewise rose 15%....
Right?
Did they?
I mean I thought these eeeeevil file traders were responsible for all the woes of the music cartel^Windustry.
Right?
Is it?
And now that all those eeeevil file traders have got their comeuppances, the music cartel^Windustry should be back in the black.
Right?
Shouldn't it?
Seems it also replaces "viruses" with "virii"....
(C'mon, "viri" I can understand, but who's the knucklehead that thought up "virii", and why does this spurious plural spread as if it were itself a virus?)
Thereby depriving SCO of their revenue stream. They are trying to cast a cloud of FUD over the entire Linux and GNU codebase, to establish de facto ownership of the whole enchilada.
Yes, it's like slapping a lien on your house over a couple of stolen teacups. What remains to be seen is whether the court will allow it. Can any lawyers comment? (Lawyers, please, not the zillions of IANALs that inhabit these parts.)
McBunkum has admitted to exactly this in the IBM-buy-us-out article:
Is there any doubt left that the judge needs to smack this guy down like the liar and FUDster that he is?
Have you forgotten Jayson Blair already?
And remember, kids, when you download MP3s, you're downloading TERRORISM!
Look, maybe some obscure check-box that says the equivalent of "Yes, please spam me!" might hold up in court. But in terms of public goodwill, the only rule that counts is the golden one, and I don't mean "he who has the gold makes the rules."
Weasely marketing tactics do no one any good.
...is to country music what Britney is to pop. Luscious to look at, and utterly devoid of musical talent.
She should stick to the calendars and forget about the music.
The Dixie Chicks and a few others are all that is left of real country music, as opposed to the watered-down crap sold to damn-Yankees.
(Oh, and yes, the L stands for Lee and the J for Jackson.)
Suppose that you have one email to tell you that you've been accepted for a job, and please report to work Monday morning.
One message. Among 10,000 spams.
Do you really think you'd find that one message?
They've had us by the large boxes?
Or did you mean cojones?
And $12? Where are you getting CDs so cheap?
You do know that this song isn't about a patriot but about a Vietnam veteran, don't you?
Don't feel bad. Ronald Reagan never figured it out either.
Me quedo callado sobre tu uso de "teh" en tus quejas sobre "proper modern Engl ^H^H^H^H American"....
Third declension nouns can also end in -us. Their (nominative) plurals are in -era or -ora.
Some examples:
genus -> genera
tempus -> tempora
corpus -> corpora
C'mon, was it really so hard to spot what a lot of bullshit Gordon-wossname is spewing?
Some posthumous works may come out under a life-plus-X term that might have been cast aside under a life-plus-zero term. Life plus 50 is probably more than enough.
Life plus 70 is absurd and our so-called elected officials should be ashamed of going along with it. And may Sonny Bono *not* rest in peace.
Consider my ongoing project to translate Nethack into something resembling Spanish. Gettext offers support for plurals, but not for gender; it provides no way to make sure that a blessed sword (espada) is bendita, but a blessed helmet (yelmo) is bendito. Languages with noun cases, such as German, Finnish, and Russian, have an additional problem: a monster is a subject when it hits you and a direct object when you hit it. Furthermore, sometimes Nethack must parse user input, as when making a wish, and differing word order and words with more than one meaning create lots of pitfalls there. Finally, Nethack is laden with jokes and puns, and many of these don't survive translation.
Dude, lighten up. Didn't you notice the name Alan Sokal in that pile of "postmodern" rubbish?
Seems to work for These guys.
Cupertino, CA
15 September 2002
Dear Slashdot Editors:
Your article on building Macintoshes is a threat to the valuable intellectual property rights of our client, Apple Computer. You are hereby ordered to cease and desist publication of this article, or face legal action.
All your Mac are belong to us.
Sincerely,
I. Will Cheatham, Esq.
Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe, P.A.