Please note, this is covered by the old BSD licnese (with advertisement clause), so it's not GPL compatible. The code is aruguably IP theft, since it was not supposed to be available before Caldera made it free.
Face it. They showed an example that didn't give away any IP rights. The ability to maintain their IP is why you can't see stolen code with value unless you sign an NDA protecting their IP rights.
Face it, they are lying. As many others have pointed out the code they showed has not only been released for free use by them, but also has been publicly available before they even existed.
So then , why are they suing IBM, if a company's IP is leaked by one of its own employees, or an ex-employee of the ormer company wich owned the IP, then shouldn't it sue caldera or the employee who leaked the code in to the kernel ? what's IBM got to do with this ?
The code wasn't leaked,it was given away by SCO in a previous incarnation under a BSD license.
Except that phone calls are disruptive, because they actually make something ring and you can't filter them out. Get a sense of proportion, why don't you?
A sense of proportion? Spammers have taken what was and could have continued to be a fantastic medium for instantaneous communication and turned it into a joke.
I do think Debian is losing its edge in the developer community though. It used to be that most developers used Debian on their main workstation, but now you are seeing Gentoo mentioned a whole lot. I guess being that Gentoo is bleeding edge and source based, this does make sense.
Yes, it does make sense and it just seemed plain weird that many of the maintainer's of the flagship OS of the Free Software movement were surprised that there was a substantial group of users who actually wanted to compile Open Source rather than just install binaries.
Please don't give me the "you can kill someone with a knife or a stick or a baseball bat if you wanted to! guns are no different" argument either, it's a bit tired and stupid to compare beating someone to death with a baseball bat to simply pulling the trigger of a gun in a moment of anger when some asshat cuts you off on the highway.
but a SCO win means the immediate death of Linux...
It wouldn't even mean that. Even in the extremely unlikely case that there is some supposedly contamintated code in the kernel that couldn't be removed all Linux would have to do is fork BSD, slap the GPL (modified to meet whatever legal points it falls, if any) onto it and go on.
SCO is saying people do NOT have the right to license their work if they are going to allow copies. IANAL, so I don't know. But I would much prefer a world where things are either FREE, or they are RESTRICTED. And where nobody RESTRICTS ME from using their tools if I intend to make a living off of using them.
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Programis covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program)."
The GPL does not restrict you from using a tool, it only restricts you from making a profit from the tool itself.
Yes, that seems a likely scenario. The ESA (RIAA is not involved here) will just go out and file suit without even having a person check the file out. "Sorry your honor, we never bothered to look at the evidence." A more likely scenario is, upon receiving no response, the ESA will look at the file and the story ends right there.
The point is that they should look at the file before they send out a letter saying they believe it is infringing instead of making others do their work for them.
In addition to calling or ignoring, the recipient also has the option of hitting the "reply" button and send an e-mail back.
Replying to unsolicited email usually leads to getting more unsolicited email.
sorry, a little off topic, but i think it fits with the above mentioned problem with the web today, plus, it's fresh in my mind, cause i'm dealing w/ a PITA type of guy right now.
Tell you what...why don't you offer the "PITA" a deal? You give up claim to all the "IP"" you own, and he gives up claim to all the "IP" he owns?
You might care if you worked at Microsoft and had to be laid off because of this lawsuit. You can argue that this sort of thing only takes funds away from the executives. Unfortunetly it is the people with the low paying jobs that will be suffering the effects of this the most.
As those who worked for Microsoft cared for employees of other firms put out of business by Microsoft's monopoly practices? C'mon...get real now! The world is full of people just aching to take a golden shower in Microsoft's tin cup.
The two best ways to profit from a bogus patent is to either go for small amounts from small companies that will settle before defending, or to go after the largest companies that jealous lawyers will perceive as having too much money. The courts are desparate to show that they are "for the people" and that bogus patents defend the people.
That would make the answer obvious then, wouldn't it? Just have Microsoft demonstrate to the court how they stand up against corporate greed to further the rights of the "little man" and they are in like flint B-).
Societies may or may recognize those rights, but they certainly don't endow people with them. Your notion that societies -- human creations -- give people their rights is both fundmantally wrong and fundamentally dangerous. Such a belief is the foundation of every philosophy that asserts the individual owes his life to the state and to society. In other words, that belief is the basis of facism and totalitarianism. That the world still suffers from it is attributable to people who, apparently like you, divide people into "the masses" and the "leader".
No, I don't divide people into "the masses" and "the leader", but most societies do. Thankfully we both live in a society that does grant people their rights, at least for now. If I believed, as you do, that these rights are natural I wouldn't be as concerned about the possibility of society taking them away as I am now.
Nope. Our rights exist because we exist, not because society gave them to us. As the Declaration of Independence says, everyone is endowed with rights. Society is obligated to respect and honor those rights, but they cannot bestow rights on anyone. (Society can, however, prevent someone -- a criminal, typically -- from exercising his rights. That's a restraint of behavior.)
So, when a missionary is arrested for preaching Christianity on the streets of Mecca all he has to do is hold up a copy of the Declaration of Independence to avoid punishment? Saudi society would say no. The Declaration of Independence only holds creedence because US society says it does.
A belief that rights flow to an individual from society is very dangerous, because it leads to the belief that society can take away those rights. The usual pattern, especially in European history and thought, has been for the state to claim it is synonymous with society, and that, therefore, all rights flow from the state. That way lies totalitarianism, as the last century taught us.
Free and open societies are a pretty recent development, and not even the global norm. The bulk of human governmental history is in fact totalitarist and continues to be so today. Whether it be alpha male, tribal chief, high priest, king, or dictator the masses have been playing follow the leader since the dawn of time.
To assume that rights are natural is the real danger here. It leads to people forgetting that it is in fact the society that they live in that determine what rights they have, and makes it easier for the powers that be to take them away.
Tons of people not covered by a proper medicare system (U.S).
The irony here is that the uninsured end up getting their healthcare totally paid for by the insured in the form of increased costs and higher premiums because they don't have to contribute anything to the system.
I guess you have never tried to make a living by being a writer or a musician.
Every note you play has been played by someone else before, as every word you write has been written by someone else before. Very little if anything can be created today that does not rely on someone else's work.
Society, by expressing its will via a democratic government, has the right to determine how property -- intellectual and physical -- is used, but society does not have the right to assume or transfer ownership of an individual's property. If I create or author a work, all rights to that work belong to me and any rights to it enjoyed by others are, definition, the rights I transferred to them.
All the rights to your work belong to you only because society says they do. If the will of society changes then, via the democratic process, your rights can change too.
The concept of having access to source code was very appealing to us...So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that we would be required to publish our source code for others to use.
It's surprising that you're company was surprised that others find having access to source code as appealing as your company does.
WHAT THE HELL RIGHT TO YOU HAVE TO ANYTHING I MAKE?! If I produce something, and sell it, and then want to stop selling it (either because it's not profitable any more, or I don't have time, or just don't feel like it), there is no reason, legal or otherwise, why you should magically gain rights to it.
Because that is the deal you made with society. You got a temporary monopoly to profit from your work in exchange for sharing that work with the public. Once you stop sharing your work you break your side of the contract.
Slashdot Mirror
Please note, this is covered by the old BSD licnese (with advertisement clause), so it's not GPL compatible. The code is aruguably IP theft, since it was not supposed to be available before Caldera made it free.
Are you saying SCO stole it from BSD then?
Face it. They showed an example that didn't give away any IP rights. The ability to maintain their IP is why you can't see stolen code with value unless you sign an NDA protecting their IP rights.
Face it, they are lying. As many others have pointed out the code they showed has not only been released for free use by them, but also has been publicly available before they even existed.
Would this be a violation, then? Isn't all versions of original UNIX what SCO claims it owns?
No, Caldera (now known as SCO) open sourced it a couple of years ago.
So then , why are they suing IBM, if a company's IP is leaked by one of its own employees, or an ex-employee of the ormer company wich owned the IP, then shouldn't it sue caldera or the employee who leaked the code in to the kernel ?
what's IBM got to do with this ?
The code wasn't leaked,it was given away by SCO in a previous incarnation under a BSD license.
I think you've pretty well summed up why a lot of hobbyists have left Debian to tinker with other systems such as Gentoo. It's just not fun any more.
But Daddy you told me you provided a very much needed service to the world, why would you be ashamed to let me here about exactly what it is?
Except that phone calls are disruptive, because they actually make something ring and you can't filter them out. Get a sense of proportion, why don't you?
A sense of proportion? Spammers have taken what was and could have continued to be a fantastic medium for instantaneous communication and turned it into a joke.
I do think Debian is losing its edge in the developer community though. It used to be that most developers used Debian on their main workstation, but now you are seeing Gentoo mentioned a whole lot. I guess being that Gentoo is bleeding edge and source based, this does make sense.
Yes, it does make sense and it just seemed plain weird that many of the maintainer's of the flagship OS of the Free Software movement were surprised that there was a substantial group of users who actually wanted to compile Open Source rather than just install binaries.
Please don't give me the "you can kill someone with a knife or a stick or a baseball bat if you wanted to! guns are no different" argument either, it's a bit tired and stupid to compare beating someone to death with a baseball bat to simply pulling the trigger of a gun in a moment of anger when some asshat cuts you off on the highway.
So that was you? No wonder you're so worried.
but a SCO win means the immediate death of Linux...
It wouldn't even mean that. Even in the extremely unlikely case that there is some supposedly contamintated code in the kernel that couldn't be removed all Linux would have to do is fork BSD, slap the GPL (modified to meet whatever legal points it falls, if any) onto it and go on.
the GPL guarantees nothing beyond a load of whingers will demand source code if they think you've done any customizations.
If your wife, g/f, b/f...whatever, gives you head certainly you return the favor do you not? Really, returning the favor is all the GPL is about.
SCO is saying people do NOT have the right to license their work if they are going to allow copies. IANAL, so I don't know. But I would much prefer a world where things are either FREE, or they are RESTRICTED. And where nobody RESTRICTS ME from using their tools if I intend to make a living off of using them.
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Programis covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program)."
The GPL does not restrict you from using a tool, it only restricts you from making a profit from the tool itself.
Yes, that seems a likely scenario. The ESA (RIAA is not involved here) will just go out and file suit without even having a person check the file out. "Sorry your honor, we never bothered to look at the evidence." A more likely scenario is, upon receiving no response, the ESA will look at the file and the story ends right there.
The point is that they should look at the file before they send out a letter saying they believe it is infringing instead of making others do their work for them.
In addition to calling or ignoring, the recipient also has the option of hitting the "reply" button and send an e-mail back.
Replying to unsolicited email usually leads to getting more unsolicited email.
sorry, a little off topic, but i think it fits with the above mentioned problem with the web today, plus, it's fresh in my mind, cause i'm dealing w/ a PITA type of guy right now.
Tell you what...why don't you offer the "PITA" a deal? You give up claim to all the "IP"" you own, and he gives up claim to all the "IP" he owns?
You might care if you worked at Microsoft and had to be laid off because of this lawsuit. You can argue that this sort of thing only takes funds away from the executives. Unfortunetly it is the people with the low paying jobs that will be suffering the effects of this the most.
As those who worked for Microsoft cared for employees of other firms put out of business by Microsoft's monopoly practices? C'mon...get real now! The world is full of people just aching to take a golden shower in Microsoft's tin cup.
The two best ways to profit from a bogus patent is to either go for small amounts from small companies that will settle before defending, or to go after the largest companies that jealous lawyers will perceive as having too much money. The courts are desparate to show that they are "for the people" and that bogus patents defend the people.
That would make the answer obvious then, wouldn't it? Just have Microsoft demonstrate to the court how they stand up against corporate greed to further the rights of the "little man" and they are in like flint B-).
How can you use Konqueror as a replacement for internet explorer?
I agree, you can't compare the two. The first freedom while the second assumes slavery.
Societies may or may recognize those rights, but they certainly don't endow people with them. Your notion that societies -- human creations -- give people their rights is both fundmantally wrong and fundamentally dangerous. Such a belief is the foundation of every philosophy that asserts the individual owes his life to the state and to society. In other words, that belief is the basis of facism and totalitarianism. That the world still suffers from it is attributable to people who, apparently like you, divide people into "the masses" and the "leader".
No, I don't divide people into "the masses" and "the leader", but most societies do. Thankfully we both live in a society that does grant people their rights, at least for now. If I believed, as you do, that these rights are natural I wouldn't be as concerned about the possibility of society taking them away as I am now.
Nope. Our rights exist because we exist, not because society gave them to us. As the Declaration of Independence says, everyone is endowed with rights. Society is obligated to respect and honor those rights, but they cannot bestow rights on anyone. (Society can, however, prevent someone -- a criminal, typically -- from exercising his rights. That's a restraint of behavior.)
So, when a missionary is arrested for preaching Christianity on the streets of Mecca all he has to do is hold up a copy of the Declaration of Independence to avoid punishment? Saudi society would say no. The Declaration of Independence only holds creedence because US society says it does.
A belief that rights flow to an individual from society is very dangerous, because it leads to the belief that society can take away those rights. The usual pattern, especially in European history and thought, has been for the state to claim it is synonymous with society, and that, therefore, all rights flow from the state. That way lies totalitarianism, as the last century taught us.
Free and open societies are a pretty recent development, and not even the global norm. The bulk of human governmental history is in fact totalitarist and continues to be so today. Whether it be alpha male, tribal chief, high priest, king, or dictator the masses have been playing follow the leader since the dawn of time.
To assume that rights are natural is the real danger here. It leads to people forgetting that it is in fact the society that they live in that determine what rights they have, and makes it easier for the powers that be to take them away.
Tons of people not covered by a proper medicare system (U.S).
The irony here is that the uninsured end up getting their healthcare totally paid for by the insured in the form of increased costs and higher premiums because they don't have to contribute anything to the system.
""Intellectual property" is an oxymoron"
I guess you have never tried to make a living by being a writer or a musician.
Every note you play has been played by someone else before, as every word you write has been written by someone else before. Very little if anything can be created today that does not rely on someone else's work.
Society, by expressing its will via a democratic government, has the right to determine how property -- intellectual and physical -- is used, but society does not have the right to assume or transfer ownership of an individual's property. If I create or author a work, all rights to that work belong to me and any rights to it enjoyed by others are, definition, the rights I transferred to them.
All the rights to your work belong to you only because society says they do. If the will of society changes then, via the democratic process, your rights can change too.
The concept of having access to source code was
very appealing to us...So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that
we would be required to publish our source code for others to use.
It's surprising that you're company was surprised that others find having access to source code as appealing as your company does.
WHAT THE HELL RIGHT TO YOU HAVE TO ANYTHING I MAKE?! If I produce something, and sell it, and then want to stop selling it (either because it's not profitable any more, or I don't have time, or just don't feel like it), there is no reason, legal or otherwise, why you should magically gain rights to it.
Because that is the deal you made with society. You got a temporary monopoly to profit from your work in exchange for sharing that work with the public. Once you stop sharing your work you break your side of the contract.
There not pirating, just sitting on them so they can get squatter's rights.