> Perhaps they recognize that everyone who would be likely to have a legitimate grievance are those who actually use Windows.
Your assumption is that anyone who has any access to any Windows machines should be writing all their contracts in Word. What if I'm a Linux shop trying to develop an application that will interoperate with Windows, but MS refuses to document their protocols as they were ordered to. You think it's legitimate that if I want to complain, I need to buy a Word license and import all my contracts and documentation to Word just so I can complain?
In some places, we actually test that all of our critical applications will continue to run after applying patches to the OS rather than just blindly applying every patch and hoping nothing breaks.
> Of course, I haven't dicussed any of this with you so far, so I don't know yet how good a case you have.
If you're willing to sign an NDA that forbids you working in IT for the rest of your life, I'd be willing to show you some BSD code that looks similar to some code in the Linux kernel first.
If you don't like that arrangement, I can pay Laura DiDio or someone else who's never looked at a program in their life to say that two programs have identical comments.
However you want to do it, but if I don't get the check by midnight, I'm going to double the fee. Don't worry, I have no intention to sue you. The bill is in the mail and unless you pay, I will sue you.
As long as your giving money to people who never bothered to prove that they own what they're selling you, I'm going to go ahead and claim that I own something in the Linux kernel too. Like SCO, I won't tell you what I claim to own, but I'll only charge you $400/CPU for it.
> VoIP lets people talk at a great distance and travels over telco lines. And does not get taxed.
I beg to differ. I most certainly DO pay taxes on my DSL line (including the universal service fee). And since my DSL service comes from Speakeasy (via Covad) and my main line comes from Verizon, I'm paying these taxes twice for the same piece of wire.
You need to RTFA. In most cases, I would agree with you. But the only reason this wasn't published was that it was too racy by 1930's standards. There's no reason to believe he didn't want this published. He had tried to get it published, but in the '30s, they wouldn't have even been allowed to ship it by mail!
Also: "Earnings will be going to the advancement of human exploration of space."
Well, I can argue that they're hypocrites. After all, they were never satisfied when AOL said "it's our network, we can do what we want."
Re:The real problem with these cases...
on
Microsoft vs. Burst.com
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
> It's cheaper for MS to just pay small companies "small" settlements of $20-50 million.
Remind me again how many fines MS had to pay for the whole anti-trust case (and please don't count software since the marginal cost $0 *and* it strengthens their monopoly).
For Microsoft, this is pretty ethical behavior. Withholding evidence is a lot better than producing phony video evidence. They sure learned their lesson with that antitrust case... they almost had to pay a fine!
> Email needs to be reliable communication medium. If a message can not be delivered, it has to be returned to the sender.
The thing is, the sender was forged. Since the virus scanner knows the message was a virus and correctly identifies it as such, shouldn't it know that the virus uses forged headers? And since it should know the header was forged, it should NOT return the message.
Further, the virus scanner should not send the whole fucking virus back. That's just retarded.
I work in the Federal Government. We use lots of Free and Open Source Software. Sometimes because it's better, sometimes because it's free (sometimes for both reasons).
If I need to do something, it is far easier to grab a free implementation than to go through channels to get budgeted and all the hassle that goes along with that.
We use lots of proprietary software too, often because it's the only thing that does the trick. Sometimes because we started using it before a free alternative was viable. I am migrating my Splus applications to R (mostly for technical reasons). We use MS Office because everyone else does.
> 1) I'm not saying I agreed with his point of view, just that should be aware that bring up serious issues...
Oh come on. You started this thread by saying that his legal mumbo jumbo was perfectly coherent.
> at least he cited a source.
His source is nonsense. Look, Chapter 3 of the Copyright Act has NOTHING to do with who put what under copyright, it deals with "DURATION OF COPYRIGHT". And Section 301 is titled "Preemption with respect to other laws".
His cite is a complete non-sequitor, but you thought it was all coherent. Their proof by citation worked only because you didn't bother to read what was cited.
> So you go and put me on your foes list?
Well, yeah, why I am I wasting my time with people who, at this stage, still think SCO has anything rational to say.
Let's pretend for just one second that 1 million lines of Linux code actually belong to SCO. That still doesn't explain their theory that end-users owe them $700/CPU. Art Buchwald got money from Eddie Murphy for Coming to America. He didn't expect everyone who ever saw the movie to write him a check. Not once has a copyright holder received one cent from a person who merely read a book, song, article or software program that was later shown to have been plagiarized.
And finally, to this day, SCO makes the Linux kernel available for download on their FTP site. They *know* it contains "their" code, and they make it available along with a document that says the whole thing is under the GPL. You can get what they claim to be their code from their server, and it says it is under the GPL. They put it on their server. They distribute it. This is happening right now. The only way that they can continue to claim that they haven't released it under the GPL is to claim under some theory that the GPL doesn't apply. And if that's the case, then they have no legal right to be making the REST of the kernel available for download.
Initially, you said that it doesn't matter than runoff elections can be unfair because that doesn't happen if there are only two front runners, and that's true enough.
However, primaries frequently have more than two front runners. In those elections, you may easily have the exact case that I described at the top of this thread.
> Let's say you have a hundred files, and you put one of your hundred files under the GPL. That doesn't mean you've lost the rights to your other 99 files.
However, if you're IBM and you develop JFS for OS/2 and later port it to AIX, you do lose your rights to the file.
They are claiming they are the copyright owners and that as such only they have the right to put the code under GPL and that if IBM (or anyone else) put that code out under GPL it is meaningless because they never had the right to do so.
From the article:
If you look at the terms of the GPL and the terms of copyright law, copyright law governs. It is the exclusive authority regarding the use, distribution, etc., of copyrighted material. In the GPL, (there is a section that) specifically says it applies only to the use and distribution. In other words, the exact same topics that are covered exclusively by the Copyright Act are covered by the GPL. Section 301 of the Copyright Act says the Copyright Act pre-empts any claims that are governed regarding use, distribution and copying. We believe that although the GPL is being tossed into the fray, it is pre-empted by federal copyright law.
They aren't claiming that they didn't release the software under the GPL, they are saying that the GPL is invalid because federal copyright trumps it.
> The main thrust is that he's betting on the fact that Copyright law trumps whatever provisions are in the GPL, so IBM's GPL defense doesn't hold water;
Oh come on. This is their same claim that Federal Copyright only allows 1 copy for backup and the GPL allows multiple copies and is therefore invalid.
Somehow out of all this, they conclude that since Federal Copyright only allows 1 copy, the GPL is invalid and they are now free to make unlimited copies. After all, they are STILL distributing the kernel and, even if you can accept that 1 million lines belong to them, the rest DON'T. Under their own theory, SCO is guilty of vast copyright infringement.
And this, of course, completely ignores the fact that the Federal Copyright law still allows the OWNER of a copyright to authorize additional copies. Duh.
Slashdot Mirror
> Perhaps they recognize that everyone who would be likely to have a legitimate grievance are those who actually use Windows.
Your assumption is that anyone who has any access to any Windows machines should be writing all their contracts in Word. What if I'm a Linux shop trying to develop an application that will interoperate with Windows, but MS refuses to document their protocols as they were ordered to. You think it's legitimate that if I want to complain, I need to buy a Word license and import all my contracts and documentation to Word just so I can complain?
According to netcraft, it does run Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000.
> And if it doesn't work?
You fix it. In some cases, MS patches have been at fault and you wait for the next one. In other cases, you have to modify your own application.
In some places, we actually test that all of our critical applications will continue to run after applying patches to the OS rather than just blindly applying every patch and hoping nothing breaks.
> Of course, I haven't dicussed any of this with you so far, so I don't know yet how good a case you have.
If you're willing to sign an NDA that forbids you working in IT for the rest of your life, I'd be willing to show you some BSD code that looks similar to some code in the Linux kernel first.
If you don't like that arrangement, I can pay Laura DiDio or someone else who's never looked at a program in their life to say that two programs have identical comments.
However you want to do it, but if I don't get the check by midnight, I'm going to double the fee. Don't worry, I have no intention to sue you. The bill is in the mail and unless you pay, I will sue you.
As long as your giving money to people who never bothered to prove that they own what they're selling you, I'm going to go ahead and claim that I own something in the Linux kernel too. Like SCO, I won't tell you what I claim to own, but I'll only charge you $400/CPU for it.
> VoIP lets people talk at a great distance and travels over telco lines. And does not get taxed.
I beg to differ. I most certainly DO pay taxes on my DSL line (including the universal service fee). And since my DSL service comes from Speakeasy (via Covad) and my main line comes from Verizon, I'm paying these taxes twice for the same piece of wire.
You need to RTFA. In most cases, I would agree with you. But the only reason this wasn't published was that it was too racy by 1930's standards. There's no reason to believe he didn't want this published. He had tried to get it published, but in the '30s, they wouldn't have even been allowed to ship it by mail!
Also: "Earnings will be going to the advancement of human exploration of space."
I don't know why the black stripe goes so far, but they are indeed covering up the fact that he is holding a red hat.
> reverse-engineering for the purposes of interoperability is allowed by the DMCA.
That defense hasn't worked for DeCSS.
Well, I can argue that they're hypocrites. After all, they were never satisfied when AOL said "it's our network, we can do what we want."
> It's cheaper for MS to just pay small companies "small" settlements of $20-50 million.
Remind me again how many fines MS had to pay for the whole anti-trust case (and please don't count software since the marginal cost $0 *and* it strengthens their monopoly).
For Microsoft, this is pretty ethical behavior. Withholding evidence is a lot better than producing phony video evidence. They sure learned their lesson with that antitrust case... they almost had to pay a fine!
I believe Burst wanted communications that had taken place between various MS managers and such. I think they're hoping to find something like:
From: BillG@msn.com
To: SteveB@msn.com
Subject: Busting Burst
Steve, I think we can use the tech we saw from Burst, but let's not pay for it, ok?
I agree. I will be happy when Darl McBride is sharing a cell with Joseph Druce.
> Email needs to be reliable communication medium. If a message can not be delivered, it has to be returned to the sender.
The thing is, the sender was forged. Since the virus scanner knows the message was a virus and correctly identifies it as such, shouldn't it know that the virus uses forged headers? And since it should know the header was forged, it should NOT return the message.
Further, the virus scanner should not send the whole fucking virus back. That's just retarded.
I am already double taxed. This would be triple taxing. I pay a Universal Service fee to both Verizon (my local phone company) and SpeakEasy (my ISP).
I work in the Federal Government. We use lots of Free and Open Source Software. Sometimes because it's better, sometimes because it's free (sometimes for both reasons).
If I need to do something, it is far easier to grab a free implementation than to go through channels to get budgeted and all the hassle that goes along with that.
We use lots of proprietary software too, often because it's the only thing that does the trick. Sometimes because we started using it before a free alternative was viable. I am migrating my Splus applications to R (mostly for technical reasons). We use MS Office because everyone else does.
I have Linux on my desktop.
> 1) I'm not saying I agreed with his point of view, just that should be aware that bring up serious issues...
Oh come on. You started this thread by saying that his legal mumbo jumbo was perfectly coherent.
> at least he cited a source.
His source is nonsense. Look, Chapter 3 of the Copyright Act has NOTHING to do with who put what under copyright, it deals with "DURATION OF COPYRIGHT". And Section 301 is titled "Preemption with respect to other laws".
His cite is a complete non-sequitor, but you thought it was all coherent. Their proof by citation worked only because you didn't bother to read what was cited.
> So you go and put me on your foes list?
Well, yeah, why I am I wasting my time with people who, at this stage, still think SCO has anything rational to say.
Let's pretend for just one second that 1 million lines of Linux code actually belong to SCO. That still doesn't explain their theory that end-users owe them $700/CPU. Art Buchwald got money from Eddie Murphy for Coming to America. He didn't expect everyone who ever saw the movie to write him a check. Not once has a copyright holder received one cent from a person who merely read a book, song, article or software program that was later shown to have been plagiarized.
And finally, to this day, SCO makes the Linux kernel available for download on their FTP site. They *know* it contains "their" code, and they make it available along with a document that says the whole thing is under the GPL. You can get what they claim to be their code from their server, and it says it is under the GPL. They put it on their server. They distribute it. This is happening right now. The only way that they can continue to claim that they haven't released it under the GPL is to claim under some theory that the GPL doesn't apply. And if that's the case, then they have no legal right to be making the REST of the kernel available for download.
Initially, you said that it doesn't matter than runoff elections can be unfair because that doesn't happen if there are only two front runners, and that's true enough.
However, primaries frequently have more than two front runners. In those elections, you may easily have the exact case that I described at the top of this thread.
> Let's say you have a hundred files, and you put one of your hundred files under the GPL. That doesn't mean you've lost the rights to your other 99 files.
However, if you're IBM and you develop JFS for OS/2 and later port it to AIX, you do lose your rights to the file.
> SCO of course will claim they stopped distribution of linux
This is simply not true. They stopped selling their Linux distribution, but even today you can download the kernel off their site.
Of course, you're still probably right. I am sure that they will claim that they stopped distributing it. It's not like they've never lied before.
> The main thrust is that he's betting on the fact that Copyright law trumps whatever provisions are in the GPL, so IBM's GPL defense doesn't hold water;
Oh come on. This is their same claim that Federal Copyright only allows 1 copy for backup and the GPL allows multiple copies and is therefore invalid.
Somehow out of all this, they conclude that since Federal Copyright only allows 1 copy, the GPL is invalid and they are now free to make unlimited copies. After all, they are STILL distributing the kernel and, even if you can accept that 1 million lines belong to them, the rest DON'T. Under their own theory, SCO is guilty of vast copyright infringement.
And this, of course, completely ignores the fact that the Federal Copyright law still allows the OWNER of a copyright to authorize additional copies. Duh.
> You use the illegal software
But doesn't this imply owners of the legal software are also being spied upon?