The question becomes, where do we draw the line? Should the DB owner get no protection?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Because as you say, where do we draw the line? The whole DB? 50% of the DB? 10%? 1%? And what about a DB of DBs? How would you like not being able to access your DB because it has now become a fact in someone else's DB?
On the face of it, some of his arguments make sense.
I wonder though if he knows that so far SCO has only sued people with whom they have done business? Mr. Marsh have been better off if he consulted with some of SCOG's previous partners and customers before he made such a rash decision.
...you are already a SCOG customer. From the CNET article:
"The first target will be a company that has a Unix license from SCO already, giving SCO some contractual leverage in the case. McBride said. In addition, the suit will involve copyright infringement claims."
Darl continuies to make it obvious that the worse possible decision a company can make is do business with him.
You know what would be a great idea? X. Too bad it would cost a bunch of money to develop X into something usefull...if only there were some way to help try to ensure that I could recover the money I spend developing it...
There is...just make sure it is the best X in the marketplace. That shouldn't be too hard, since you were the one to develop and implement your idea.
I can understand coupling the firewall stuff with the rest of the networking stack, but what basis do you have for claiming that anti-virus stuff belongs in the OS?
Your body protects itself from infection from the inside, why shouldn't an OS?
That's the first thing I thought when I read the parent post, except my example would have been for every dollar I save on software I end up spending on hardware. More memory, faster processor, better graphics card, and on and on. Sure, buying software keeps coders employed, but buying hardware keeps everybody else employed too.
My point is, and of course I am not a lawyer, is that the letter puts context to the $echo announcement. Both documents state basically the same thing and seem to clarify AT&T's intentions concerning the ownership of a licensee's modifications. The SCO Group, not having even being in existence at the time, can not change AT&T's intentions at this late date.
What clear statement of intent? The $echo article is no statement of intent: it is not a deposition; it is not presented over the signature of a corporate officer, nor on the letterhead of an attorney representing AT&T. It has exactly as much legal force as my trolling here does: none.
From the AT&T letter to IBM clarifying section 2.01:
" 2. Regarding Section 2.01, we agree that modifications and derivative works prepared by or for you are owned by you. However, ownership of any portion or portions of SOFTWARE PRODUCTS included in any such modification or derivative work remains with us."
There was no "last sentence" added to 2.01. The $echo newsletter was just a clarification that the licensee code remained the property of the licensee.
Why the hell Linux vendors would want to hide they are using XFree?
The problem with the advertising clause is just the opposite of what you seem to be inferring. Linux vendors want to be able to tell people they use XFree and other projects without having to litter their documentation and customers harddrives with thousands of pages of documentation.
here are only two questions: whether Sequent got an exception from the derivative work license terms from AT&T...
You must have missed AT&T's 8/85 clarification on that issue:
"Section 2.01 - The last sentence was added to assure licensees that AT&T will claim no ownership in the software that they developed -- only the portion of the software developed by AT&T."
And the US put Saddam in place and supported him for years, during his war with Iran. US foreign policy is not something hold up as an example of virtue.
The US's foreign policy was to support governments with whom it shared common enemies. Why does that surprise you? The enemy of my enemy is my friend is nothing new in international politics and many strange alliances have resulted because of this, perhaps the strangest being during WW2 when all "free" nations were allied with Stalin against Germany.
Now, Xfree finally will support it in 4.4, Mandrake won't include it.
Apparently neither will any other distro. Since most of the developers have left XFree86 for greener pasteurs anyway this is a good thing because more time will be spent coding drivers than coding license changes.
People who I suspect don't know what Linux is, are now starting to talk to me about this cool "whole computer thing on a CD". When you ask a few questions, it turns out it's Knoppix they're talking about.
Agreed. Though I run Gentoo myself, when someone asks me about trying out Linux I burn them a Knoppix CD so they can take great stable test drive.
Yes there is a basic human trait of appreciating that your work is helping people out...
XFree's is appreciated, the same as the Kernel team is appreciated, and GNU's appreciated, and Gnome's apprecitated, and KDE's appreciated, and all the millions of other free software contributors are appreciated.
But it would be nice not to have to fill up our boxes expressing all these individual appreciations so we still have room for the appreciated software.
Slashdot Mirror
ONLY if the phone book is copyrighted, which i don't believe it is.
If this law passes it will be.
The question becomes, where do we draw the line? Should the DB owner get no protection?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Because as you say, where do we draw the line? The whole DB? 50% of the DB? 10%? 1%? And what about a DB of DBs? How would you like not being able to access your DB because it has now become a fact in someone else's DB?
Maybe SCO knows someone at AutoZone and thinks that AutoZone will lay down easily?
Quite the contrary, their being sued because they didn't lay down like Ev1.
Just announced by Darl on the conference call.
Is Free Speech in danger when McDonald's doesn't publish the recipes of their menu or when KFC keeps the 13 spices and herbs secret?
Even if Free Speech isn't in danger, people who are allergic to any of the secret ingredients certainly are.
On the face of it, some of his arguments make sense.
I wonder though if he knows that so far SCO has only sued people with whom they have done business? Mr. Marsh have been better off if he consulted with some of SCOG's previous partners and customers before he made such a rash decision.
...you are already a SCOG customer. From the CNET article:
"The first target will be a company that has a Unix license from SCO already, giving SCO some contractual leverage in the case. McBride said. In addition, the suit will involve copyright infringement claims."
Darl continuies to make it obvious that the worse possible decision a company can make is do business with him.
You know what would be a great idea? X. Too bad it would cost a bunch of money to develop X into something usefull...if only there were some way to help try to ensure that I could recover the money I spend developing it...
There is...just make sure it is the best X in the marketplace. That shouldn't be too hard, since you were the one to develop and implement your idea.
I can understand coupling the firewall stuff with the rest of the networking stack, but what basis do you have for claiming that anti-virus stuff belongs in the OS?
Your body protects itself from infection from the inside, why shouldn't an OS?
That's the first thing I thought when I read the parent post, except my example would have been for every dollar I save on software I end up spending on hardware. More memory, faster processor, better graphics card, and on and on. Sure, buying software keeps coders employed, but buying hardware keeps everybody else employed too.
and some people wonder why some business are slow to adopt open source software for their applications ...
No, business' would rather be forced to accept new license terms everytime their suppliers decide to change them.
My point is, and of course I am not a lawyer, is that the letter puts context to the $echo announcement. Both documents state basically the same thing and seem to clarify AT&T's intentions concerning the ownership of a licensee's modifications. The SCO Group, not having even being in existence at the time, can not change AT&T's intentions at this late date.
And since no one will ever want to buy a new computer with new hardware that requires new drivers we should be set forever. Dumbass troll.
XFree86 has already been forked by former members of their core team, so driver development will continue.
What clear statement of intent? The $echo article is no statement of intent: it is not a deposition; it is not presented over the signature of a corporate officer, nor on the letterhead of an attorney representing AT&T. It has exactly as much legal force as my trolling here does: none.
From the AT&T letter to IBM clarifying section 2.01:
" 2. Regarding Section 2.01, we agree that modifications and derivative works prepared by or for you are owned by you. However, ownership of any portion or portions of SOFTWARE PRODUCTS included in any such modification or derivative work remains with us."
There was no "last sentence" added to 2.01. The $echo newsletter was just a clarification that the licensee code remained the property of the licensee.
First, it is only a magazine article
No, it is AT&T's newletter article. They, unlike SCO, actually valued their customers enough to keep them informed.
Second, the most plausible interpretation of "no ownership" is just that: "no ownership"
"No ownership" implies "public domain"...not "SCO ownership."
Why the hell Linux vendors would want to hide they are using XFree?
The problem with the advertising clause is just the opposite of what you seem to be inferring. Linux vendors want to be able to tell people they use XFree and other projects without having to litter their documentation and customers harddrives with thousands of pages of documentation.
here are only two questions: whether Sequent got an exception from the derivative work license terms from AT&T...
You must have missed AT&T's 8/85 clarification on that issue:
"Section 2.01 - The last sentence was added to assure licensees that AT&T will claim
no ownership in the software that they developed -- only the portion of the software
developed by AT&T."
Here's the relevant Groklaw link.
And the US put Saddam in place and supported him for years, during his war with Iran. US foreign policy is not something hold up as an example of virtue.
The US's foreign policy was to support governments with whom it shared common enemies. Why does that surprise you? The enemy of my enemy is my friend is nothing new in international politics and many strange alliances have resulted because of this, perhaps the strangest being during WW2 when all "free" nations were allied with Stalin against Germany.
Now, Xfree finally will support it in 4.4, Mandrake won't include it.
Apparently neither will any other distro. Since most of the developers have left XFree86 for greener pasteurs anyway this is a good thing because more time will be spent coding drivers than coding license changes.
People who I suspect don't know what Linux is, are now starting to talk to me about this cool "whole computer thing on a CD". When you ask a few questions, it turns out it's Knoppix they're talking about.
Agreed. Though I run Gentoo myself, when someone asks me about trying out Linux I burn them a Knoppix CD so they can take great stable test drive.
Gentoo would be rated higher, but they're still waiting for the results to compile.
Funny, that! But even Gentoo users with the slowest machines will have been running KDE 3.2 long before it makes it into Sid.
Yes there is a basic human trait of appreciating that your work is helping people out...
XFree's is appreciated, the same as the Kernel team is appreciated, and GNU's appreciated, and Gnome's apprecitated, and KDE's appreciated, and all the millions of other free software contributors are appreciated.
But it would be nice not to have to fill up our boxes expressing all these individual appreciations so we still have room for the appreciated software.
"Build your own" is a horrible waste of resources that takes no advantage of code-reuse.
Didn't Linux begin life because someone wanted to build his own Unix? Starting from scratch is not always the worst solution.
Well now, this is strange, I've never had my formatting disappear this badly in my message before.
I believe that is a new Slashdot feature. The code goes something like this:
if(spell_nazi == TRUE)
fsck_up(his_msg_fmt_str);
For my money, I would have bet on OS X providing a better system from these perspectives.
Locking yourself into a single hardware vendor is no answer to the problem of being locked into a single software solution.