3) I see no reason why they would have to show any code other than that in Linux, and since doing so would not change the facts of the matter one bit, any claim of revealing that information harming their case against IBM is dubious at best. I'm fairly certain that the Linux community would be more than capable of tracing how, when, and by whose hand it got there [1].
However, SCO does have a legal obligation to try and mitigate damages, so by NOT revealing the infringing code they are actually weakening their potential case against other Linux vendors.
[1] IMO, this is exactly why SCO refuses to reveal the details: their claims are bogus and they know the Linux community would have proof in a matter of days.
Customers of Microsoft were exposed to lawsuits when Microsoft breached Timeline's patents with code in SQL server. (Specifically, MS licensed the tech for their own use, not for distribution.)
Copyright regulates publishing, and so it only effects publishers, not end users (copyright = the right to make copies). End users cannot be held accountable because they bought a product that included someone elses copyrighted code. Had it merely been copyright in the SQL example, only Microsoft would be liable.
Patents, however, must be licensed in order to be used. A patent holder can go after end-users for license fees for the use of the patented device.
Microsoft has been convicted of copyright infringement before, but it was for some multimedia thing and nobody ever heard about it until it was brought up by that Peruvian guy.
It even says so quite clearly in the article you linked. Patent law and copyright law are quite different.
If it were a copyright issue, only Microsoft would be liable since copyright only covers publishing.
Patents, on the other hand, are a whole different beast. Everyone who uses something that is covered by a patent owes the patent holder royalties, if they so choose.
That said, Microsoft has also been convicted of copyright infringement, just not in relation to SQL (IIRC it was some multi-media thing).
Maybe they're only interested in distros they can get money out of, which basically means Red Hat and SuSE. Can you name any others?
With Debian, who would you even sue? Mandrake is still viable as a distro, but as a company they've been on the ropes for some time. Slackware has always been profitable, but that doesn't take much when there's only one guy. Does Gentoo make any money? I don't know. Connectiva and TurboLinux might be doing OK, but they have basically no US presence, so they aren't really subject to US IP laws. That's all the distros I can think of right now.
There are only two reasons for them not to reveal the code:
1. There is no such code
2. The code is in some laughably insignificant or obsolete part of Linux, which would backfire on them because everybody would then say that SCO's code is obsolete and this proves that Linux has far surpassed them.
There is a third reason:
3. There is matching code, but it originated in Linux and was stolen by SCO, something which the Linux community could likely prove in short order.
Re:considered the father of Linux?
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
I don't suppose you have a copy of SCO's EULA handy? I'd be extremely suprised if it didn't include a very similar clause. In fact, I challenge anyone to show me any commercial software that doesn't have an exclusion of liability clause in its EULA!
Btw, what does "absolutely solid" mean? Does it mean, like, "its way cool, I like it" ?
Perhaps you should read the link I provided? The answer is there, but I'll summarize it for you: It means that the GPL has never been tested in court because it doesn't need to be. If you violate the GPL you are fucked, and every single IP lawyer that has been in that position has recognized that basic truth. That's why every single one of them has chosen to cooperate rather than fight.
When it comes down to it, the fact that the GPL has never been tested in court is a testament to its LACK of ambiguity. If there were any loopholes in the GPL at all, someone would have tested them by now.
OR... one might avoid inferences altoghether and simply take Eben Moglen's word for it that the GPL is absolutely solid. He is, after all, General Counsel for the FSF, and as such enforces the GPL on a regular basis.
Yeah, that sounds too high, at least for "typical" speeds. Racers certainly can do 30mph on the flat for a while, and obviously anyone can exceed those speeds given a sufficient downhill, but "typical" speeds for bike traffic are probably more like 10-20mph.
When I was riding my bike to my summer school classes between my freshman and sophmore years in high school I was routinely hitting 35-40mph on flat ground, and I was hardly a racer. I'm sure my average was something like 10-20 miles per hour, but how different is that from a car on surface streets?
The FSF is open and honest about the specifics of the violation. It's not difficult to find out exactly what code is being used by the violator. The FSF is also very respectful, taking every opportunity to resolve the conflict without having to even threaten a lawsuit.
SCO, on the other hand, is very secretive, giving absolutely no evidence to support their vague allegations. They persue drastic legal measures before even giving the option of a more peaceful resolution, and in the process disparage the entire open source developer community, which until the beginning of this action they claimed to be a part of.
One kid asks if he can borrow some of you lunch money, another threatens to beat you up if you don't give it to them. What's the difference? Both of them just want some milk with their sandwich.
For all the GPL violations that the FSF has ever gone to court/threaten to goto court, I have yet to see any damages.
The FSF has NEVER gone to court over the GPL, and this is the first time I've ever even heard of them threatening to do so. Why would there be damages if a suit has never even been filed?
All that being said...IF there are damage awards, how much do you ask for violating a free product's license.
Selling price has absolutely no bearing on damages awarded in a copyright violation suit. If it did, there's no way the RIAA could have sued those college kids for such a ludicrous amount of money. IIRC, their amount was based on the $150,000 per violation that copyright law allows. It certainly wasn't based on the actual selling price per song.
There are *many* unresolved ambiguities concerning the GPL and predicting what it might mean and how it may operate under peculiar circumstances is sometimes *very* difficult.
Could you name a few of these ambiguities? Or are you just spewing FUD?
I've read the GPL a few times, and it seems very clear-cut to me.
Do you know how to read? Try reading the GPL. It requires any derivative works to also be GPL. That's a restriction, because it means you can never make software that is available for sale from anything that has been opened as GPL. Pretty serious restriction, if you ask a professional programmer. I am one, I know.
It's a good thing you're a programmer, because you suck at being a lawyer.
In absolutely no way does the GPL restrict your ability to sell software. Just because you aren't smart enough to come up with a way to make money off GPL software doesn't mean there isn't one.
As for the rest, well, if you don't distribute your code then the license is pretty much irrelevant, isn't it. If it's so impractical, why use it at all? If the only value you see in the Open Source community is your ability to leach from it, you make me sick.
The GPL doesn't require source to be included, just available. Have you asked for it?
Re:GPL the best bet
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The way I see it, if SCO's code is in fact in Linux, then "Us" would have to prove that it's common practice to examine all of the source code for an OSS distribution (it isn't), that SCO didn't do so (which they obviously didn't), and, probably, that they continued to distribute Linux with their code after knowing that it was "theirs."
SCO continued to distribute Linux even after filing the suit against IBM. Does that count as knowingly distributing their IP under the GPL? I think it does.
At first glance many will disagree, and likely every one of them will have no experience with McMaster-Carr. The thing you have to realize is that their printed catalog is about 3500 pages, and they stock over 400,000 items, and this site incorporates all that and more. I have to say this is hands down the most usable e-commerce site I've ever had to deal with, putting many sites with far fewer items to shame.
That's right, just back up everything, especially the spyware and virus infected files that were causing the problems in the first place. Be sure to restore them exactly as they were so the customer gets the machine back in exactly the same state they gave it to you in!
My experience has been that the older a guy is, the lower his expectations get as to the looks of the girl he is looking to court. Listen to a group of 15 & 16 year olds sometime---or maybe even ask them. Their expectations are usually very high because thats what they see on television or on movies.
I think the expectations stay just as high, but the emphasis is on different things. As we grow older we learn that all too often the most beautiful are also the most petty, the most spiteful, and in the saddest situations, the most stupid. In other words, we learn that there are things more important than looks. I would hardly call that a lowering of expectations.
Yes, I don't agree with the law. Apparently Mr. Ashcroft doesn't either.
Mr. Ashcroft doesn't agree with the bulk of the Bill of Rights, either. Should we do away with that, as well?
The basic problem which anti-trust tries to solve is that Capitalism is the enemy of the Free Market. I know that's hard for most Americans to accept, but think about it for a moment: the goal of the capitalist is to increase their capital, and the pest way to do that in the long run is to eliminate your competition. Once you've done that you control the market and you can charge whatever you like for your products, making occasional adjustments to make sure that no newcomers can get a foothold.
That is a monopoly. Where there is a monopoly there is no Free Market, because the Free Market can't exist if consumers don't have freedom of choice. I hope you can see for yourself why the Free Market is important and necessary for maintaining our way of life.
I agree with the rest of your statement, mainly because it's debatable whether Microsoft was ever a true monopoly. Alternatives still existed, such as Sun and Apple, either of which would have been happy to grab some extra marketshare when Microsoft pissed off enough of their customers with their increasingly onerous prictices.
Then again, how long would either of them last if Microsoft wasn't constrained by anti-trust law? That's really the only thing that keeps MS from buying up Apple just to eliminate competition in the desktop market. Had they done that instead of pouring money into Apple to keep it afloat a few years ago, the computing market would be very different, and I very much doubt it would be for the better. Even though I don't care for Apple or their products, their mere presence is beneficial to me in that any competition will drive innovation.
Do think about that before you go railing against the evils of anti-trust. The fact is that without it, you wouldn't be enjoying the quality of life that you are today.
UNIX the commercial product was sold by ATT to SCO (or its precursor). SCO then licensed this source code to IBM for the development of their own products (AIX?).
IBM had Unix licenses long before SCO was part of the picture. Later on, IBM and SCO worked together on a project (Monterey) which IBM abandoned when they decided to start backing Linux around 3 years ago. It should be pointed out that at that time Linux already had support for at least some of the things SCO now claims it wouldn't be able to do without IBM inserting their stolen code.
While there may be more than one way to skin a cat, nothing says that 2 people won't skin them the same way. Especially when the goal is to provide an implementation of an existing technology (i.e. SysV type calls.)
Excellent point. What if all the "identical lines" are the function definitions in the header files? Since Linux attempts to reimplement the Unix APIs, those would have to be the same.
It was still pretty much explicitly programmed to do those things. It's not really bored, it was just programmed to act bored, etc. Even the image recognition is a testament to the intelligence of the programmers, but not really to the AIBO itself.
If that's the standard, than there will never be AI. At some point there will always be an intelligent programmer who knew how to make the system work in an intelligent manner. If not, then it isn't artificial, is it?
Actually, it came from Unified Multics. When Ken Thomson came up with the name he went and told his good friend Denis Richie, who made the joke you are refering to.
I think the critical difference here is that it was YOUR choice to take all that on, NOT your parents decision that you need to do these things.
The same thing applies now. Saturday is my day to sleep in, but often I don't. That's fine as long as it's my choice when I get up and not my wife's or daughter's.
Slashdot Mirror
3) I see no reason why they would have to show any code other than that in Linux, and since doing so would not change the facts of the matter one bit, any claim of revealing that information harming their case against IBM is dubious at best. I'm fairly certain that the Linux community would be more than capable of tracing how, when, and by whose hand it got there [1].
However, SCO does have a legal obligation to try and mitigate damages, so by NOT revealing the infringing code they are actually weakening their potential case against other Linux vendors.
[1] IMO, this is exactly why SCO refuses to reveal the details: their claims are bogus and they know the Linux community would have proof in a matter of days.
Beautifully put.
The only thing I would add is that having Boies isn't going to help them much in Germany.
Customers of Microsoft were exposed to lawsuits when Microsoft breached Timeline's patents with code in SQL server. (Specifically, MS licensed the tech for their own use, not for distribution.)
Copyright regulates publishing, and so it only effects publishers, not end users (copyright = the right to make copies). End users cannot be held accountable because they bought a product that included someone elses copyrighted code. Had it merely been copyright in the SQL example, only Microsoft would be liable.
Patents, however, must be licensed in order to be used. A patent holder can go after end-users for license fees for the use of the patented device.
Microsoft has been convicted of copyright infringement before, but it was for some multimedia thing and nobody ever heard about it until it was brought up by that Peruvian guy.
It even says so quite clearly in the article you linked. Patent law and copyright law are quite different.
If it were a copyright issue, only Microsoft would be liable since copyright only covers publishing.
Patents, on the other hand, are a whole different beast. Everyone who uses something that is covered by a patent owes the patent holder royalties, if they so choose.
That said, Microsoft has also been convicted of copyright infringement, just not in relation to SQL (IIRC it was some multi-media thing).
Maybe they're only interested in distros they can get money out of, which basically means Red Hat and SuSE. Can you name any others?
With Debian, who would you even sue? Mandrake is still viable as a distro, but as a company they've been on the ropes for some time. Slackware has always been profitable, but that doesn't take much when there's only one guy. Does Gentoo make any money? I don't know. Connectiva and TurboLinux might be doing OK, but they have basically no US presence, so they aren't really subject to US IP laws. That's all the distros I can think of right now.
There are only two reasons for them not to reveal the code:
1. There is no such code
2. The code is in some laughably insignificant or obsolete part of Linux, which would backfire on them because everybody would then say that SCO's code is obsolete and this proves that Linux has far surpassed them.
There is a third reason:
3. There is matching code, but it originated in Linux and was stolen by SCO, something which the Linux community could likely prove in short order.
I don't suppose you have a copy of SCO's EULA handy? I'd be extremely suprised if it didn't include a very similar clause. In fact, I challenge anyone to show me any commercial software that doesn't have an exclusion of liability clause in its EULA!
Btw, what does "absolutely solid" mean? Does it mean, like, "its way cool, I like it" ?
Perhaps you should read the link I provided? The answer is there, but I'll summarize it for you: It means that the GPL has never been tested in court because it doesn't need to be. If you violate the GPL you are fucked, and every single IP lawyer that has been in that position has recognized that basic truth. That's why every single one of them has chosen to cooperate rather than fight.
When it comes down to it, the fact that the GPL has never been tested in court is a testament to its LACK of ambiguity. If there were any loopholes in the GPL at all, someone would have tested them by now.
OR... one might avoid inferences altoghether and simply take Eben Moglen's word for it that the GPL is absolutely solid. He is, after all, General Counsel for the FSF, and as such enforces the GPL on a regular basis.
Yeah, that sounds too high, at least for "typical" speeds. Racers certainly can do 30mph on the flat for a while, and obviously anyone can exceed those speeds given a sufficient downhill, but "typical" speeds for bike traffic are probably more like 10-20mph.
When I was riding my bike to my summer school classes between my freshman and sophmore years in high school I was routinely hitting 35-40mph on flat ground, and I was hardly a racer. I'm sure my average was something like 10-20 miles per hour, but how different is that from a car on surface streets?
The FSF is open and honest about the specifics of the violation. It's not difficult to find out exactly what code is being used by the violator. The FSF is also very respectful, taking every opportunity to resolve the conflict without having to even threaten a lawsuit.
SCO, on the other hand, is very secretive, giving absolutely no evidence to support their vague allegations. They persue drastic legal measures before even giving the option of a more peaceful resolution, and in the process disparage the entire open source developer community, which until the beginning of this action they claimed to be a part of.
One kid asks if he can borrow some of you lunch money, another threatens to beat you up if you don't give it to them. What's the difference? Both of them just want some milk with their sandwich.
For all the GPL violations that the FSF has ever gone to court/threaten to goto court, I have yet to see any damages.
The FSF has NEVER gone to court over the GPL, and this is the first time I've ever even heard of them threatening to do so. Why would there be damages if a suit has never even been filed?
All that being said...IF there are damage awards, how much do you ask for violating a free product's license.
Selling price has absolutely no bearing on damages awarded in a copyright violation suit. If it did, there's no way the RIAA could have sued those college kids for such a ludicrous amount of money. IIRC, their amount was based on the $150,000 per violation that copyright law allows. It certainly wasn't based on the actual selling price per song.
There are *many* unresolved ambiguities concerning the GPL and predicting what it might mean and how it may operate under peculiar circumstances is sometimes *very* difficult.
Could you name a few of these ambiguities? Or are you just spewing FUD?
I've read the GPL a few times, and it seems very clear-cut to me.
Do you know how to read? Try reading the GPL. It requires any derivative works to also be GPL. That's a restriction, because it means you can never make software that is available for sale from anything that has been opened as GPL. Pretty serious restriction, if you ask a professional programmer. I am one, I know.
It's a good thing you're a programmer, because you suck at being a lawyer.
In absolutely no way does the GPL restrict your ability to sell software. Just because you aren't smart enough to come up with a way to make money off GPL software doesn't mean there isn't one.
As for the rest, well, if you don't distribute your code then the license is pretty much irrelevant, isn't it. If it's so impractical, why use it at all? If the only value you see in the Open Source community is your ability to leach from it, you make me sick.
The GPL doesn't require source to be included, just available. Have you asked for it?
The way I see it, if SCO's code is in fact in Linux, then "Us" would have to prove that it's common practice to examine all of the source code for an OSS distribution (it isn't), that SCO didn't do so (which they obviously didn't), and, probably, that they continued to distribute Linux with their code after knowing that it was "theirs."
SCO continued to distribute Linux even after filing the suit against IBM. Does that count as knowingly distributing their IP under the GPL? I think it does.
McMaster-Carr
At first glance many will disagree, and likely every one of them will have no experience with McMaster-Carr. The thing you have to realize is that their printed catalog is about 3500 pages, and they stock over 400,000 items, and this site incorporates all that and more. I have to say this is hands down the most usable e-commerce site I've ever had to deal with, putting many sites with far fewer items to shame.
That's right, just back up everything, especially the spyware and virus infected files that were causing the problems in the first place. Be sure to restore them exactly as they were so the customer gets the machine back in exactly the same state they gave it to you in!
That's the dumbest thing I've heard today.
My experience has been that the older a guy is, the lower his expectations get as to the looks of the girl he is looking to court. Listen to a group of 15 & 16 year olds sometime---or maybe even ask them. Their expectations are usually very high because thats what they see on television or on movies.
I think the expectations stay just as high, but the emphasis is on different things. As we grow older we learn that all too often the most beautiful are also the most petty, the most spiteful, and in the saddest situations, the most stupid. In other words, we learn that there are things more important than looks. I would hardly call that a lowering of expectations.
Yes, I don't agree with the law. Apparently Mr. Ashcroft doesn't either.
Mr. Ashcroft doesn't agree with the bulk of the Bill of Rights, either. Should we do away with that, as well?
The basic problem which anti-trust tries to solve is that Capitalism is the enemy of the Free Market. I know that's hard for most Americans to accept, but think about it for a moment: the goal of the capitalist is to increase their capital, and the pest way to do that in the long run is to eliminate your competition. Once you've done that you control the market and you can charge whatever you like for your products, making occasional adjustments to make sure that no newcomers can get a foothold.
That is a monopoly. Where there is a monopoly there is no Free Market, because the Free Market can't exist if consumers don't have freedom of choice. I hope you can see for yourself why the Free Market is important and necessary for maintaining our way of life.
I agree with the rest of your statement, mainly because it's debatable whether Microsoft was ever a true monopoly. Alternatives still existed, such as Sun and Apple, either of which would have been happy to grab some extra marketshare when Microsoft pissed off enough of their customers with their increasingly onerous prictices.
Then again, how long would either of them last if Microsoft wasn't constrained by anti-trust law? That's really the only thing that keeps MS from buying up Apple just to eliminate competition in the desktop market. Had they done that instead of pouring money into Apple to keep it afloat a few years ago, the computing market would be very different, and I very much doubt it would be for the better. Even though I don't care for Apple or their products, their mere presence is beneficial to me in that any competition will drive innovation.
Do think about that before you go railing against the evils of anti-trust. The fact is that without it, you wouldn't be enjoying the quality of life that you are today.
UNIX the commercial product was sold by ATT to SCO (or its precursor). SCO then licensed this source code to IBM for the development of their own products (AIX?).
IBM had Unix licenses long before SCO was part of the picture. Later on, IBM and SCO worked together on a project (Monterey) which IBM abandoned when they decided to start backing Linux around 3 years ago. It should be pointed out that at that time Linux already had support for at least some of the things SCO now claims it wouldn't be able to do without IBM inserting their stolen code.
While there may be more than one way to skin a cat, nothing says that 2 people won't skin them the same way. Especially when the goal is to provide an implementation of an existing technology (i.e. SysV type calls.)
Excellent point. What if all the "identical lines" are the function definitions in the header files? Since Linux attempts to reimplement the Unix APIs, those would have to be the same.
It was still pretty much explicitly programmed to do those things. It's not really bored, it was just programmed to act bored, etc. Even the image recognition is a testament to the intelligence of the programmers, but not really to the AIBO itself.
If that's the standard, than there will never be AI. At some point there will always be an intelligent programmer who knew how to make the system work in an intelligent manner. If not, then it isn't artificial, is it?
Actually, it came from Unified Multics. When Ken Thomson came up with the name he went and told his good friend Denis Richie, who made the joke you are refering to.
I think the critical difference here is that it was YOUR choice to take all that on, NOT your parents decision that you need to do these things.
The same thing applies now. Saturday is my day to sleep in, but often I don't. That's fine as long as it's my choice when I get up and not my wife's or daughter's.