People's complaints with RHAT's GPL compliance doesn't have anything to do with providing the source. It has to do with the bundling of RHEL with support contracts. The support contract restricts how many servers you can install RHEL on at once. By bundling RHEL with a support contract that restricts redistribution, RHEL itself violates the GPL.
You should see the recent postings of yoyotogoismyname. He was a well known SCOX long on the Yahoo Finance board, and has clearly had a change of heart about SCO's future based on BayStar's investment.
"To help launch the new organization, America Online has pledged $2 million in cash to the Mozilla Foundation over the next two years. AOL will also contribute additional resources through equipment, domain names and trademarks, and related intellectual property, as well as providing some transitional assistance for key personnel as they move into the new organization."
It isn't specific what the trademarks were. But given the launch of this service, I'm guessing it included "Mozilla" related trademarks but not "Netscape" related trademarks. Details here.
You know how every politician complains about "corruption of the system" while claiming to be above it all? Well, companies are similarly two-faced about abuses of patents. Jeff Bezos helped form a committee some time ago to combat the abuses of patents. The hypocricy was quite apparent. Here you had the man behind the most absurd of recent patents--one click shopping--claiming to be behind patent reform.
Even if Microsoft loses billions of dollars on this case, they will not want patents to go away. They may want "reform" of the system, where reform is custom tailors to uphold Microsoft's patents, but invalidate everyone elses. Never will Microsoft say, "You know, maybe we shouldn't have a patent on typing notification over IM." To truly want reform, they will have to call for an end to all patent abuses, especially their own.
Microsoft will forever be too proud to let this happen. This is the same company that still denies being a monopoly, let alone abusing their monopoly position, even after both have been settled in the court of law!
This is one guy, not a corporation representing a group of money-grubbing shareholders. As others have mentioned before, this person simply hates Microsoft. I imagine he would rather stop the distribution of IE and not get a dime than be bought out for a few measly millions of dollars.
Your position: "If there is even a single line of code copied from SysV to Linux via SGI, SCO is entitled to billions of dollars from SGI. Furthermore, IBM must also pay billions of dollars even though they did no copying. Finally, those who used this code in good faith must pay a substantial run-time only licensing fee to SCO even after the code is completely removed."
Two small points. First, I don't believe for a second that Gnome crashes every ten minutes. You need something to back this up other than hearsay.
Secondly, TeX existed long before MS Office, and MS Office has never replaced its functionality. The closest thing to replace its functionality is mathml.
You seem to think that there are only two choices:
No SYSV code has been misappropriated into Linux and SCO gets nothing, or
Some code has been misappropriated into Linux and SCO gets full damages.
The real truth is likely between these two, and much closer to (1). The factors that limit damages SCO might be able to collect from SGI include:
The amount of copied code was small,
The code copied was not unique or vital--it had been implemented elsewhere and thus cannot be worth much more than the alternative implementations,
The infringement was not willful, and
That the code even infringes is not obvious. The actual code has been available to many parties in various stages of openness.
It's possible that there is infringement but that SCO is entitled to so little compensation that they effectively get nothing.
How this does help SCO is by allowing them to demonstrate that their misrepresentation of rights was not willful. It will be more difficult for IBM and RHAT to collect damages from SCO if SCO's allegations had any base, as trivial and insignificant as it was.
Notice how SCO didn't trumpet SGI's violations to the press. It took a more circuituous route of notifying SGI privately, and letting SGI spread the news themselves. Though there was much speculation, nothing was official until SGI's 10K. My guess is that SCO is starting to learn that trumpeting litigous claims to the press is not the way to proceed. I guess they are tired of defending against Landham (sp?) Act violations.
(I originally posted this to finance yahoo message board, but it is appropriate here.)
You should know that this person is taking highly rated comments from the Yahoo finance message board and posting them on slashdot without proper attributions. I wrote the text in the above comment on the Yahoo finance message board as jqtechworker. You can see the original post here. I do not mind that my words have been copied. But fucking christ, at least reference the link and author.
Our company is getting ready to send someone over to India to head up some outsourcing. He's British, but that should not be any significant difference. I haven't heard of any barrier for foreigners working in India. Anyone care to cite some relevant Indian law, rather than a few words at the tail end of an article?
C I was blocked starting on August 12th, and the temporary restraining order was issued August 21st. How come Red Hat or IBM or any other interested party can't act with such celerity in getting SCO to close its trap?
Not sure the exact quote, but when people pointed out the fallacious examples, SCO said, "We think we know our own code."
However, their claims contradict this. Crucial to their suit is the fact that they did not know that there was UNIX code in Linux prior to all this litigation. If they did know that, then they willingly released their code under the GPL.
Perhaps they've learned a bunch about their code in the past few months, but if their developers did stuff like ripping out BSD advertising clauses many years ago, I don't see how the new management would be privy to it.
Yes, you can of course install as many as you want w/o cost. But, they will refuse any support if any boxes aren't covered. Large customers can probably negotiate this point though.
Well, if that's true, then it's fine. Then it's simply a matter of "the support contract is nullified if such-and-such or so-and-so." But the quoted language of the license is different, it says the customer will buy additional support contracts if the software is installed on additional machines. That is placing restrictions on redistribution, which is a big GPL no-no. I think they should revisit the language of their license.
Does the GPL allow me to require that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee and/or notify me?
No. In fact, a requirement like that would make the program non-free. If people have to pay when they get a copy of a program, or if they have to notify anyone in particular, then the program is not free. See the definition of free software.
The GPL is a free software license, and therefore it permits people to use and even redistribute the software without being required to pay anyone a fee for doing so.
So if customers of Red Hat are not allowed to redistribute the GPL portions of ES to either themselves (additional servers) or others without additional restrictions, then Red Hat is violating the GPL.
Basically, it seems that Red Hat is selling their ES software only if it is coincident with a support contract. That is fine. But to restrict in any way redistribution of the software is not allowed. So the support contract cannot say anything about "additional servers", if it is to be compatible with the GPL. Of course, if the support contract was not tied to the distribution of ES, then I think it would be fine, since they would not be sold as a single product.
The journaled file system was built on IBM's AIX JFS technology. JFS is meant as a replacement for HPFS. One of the few shortcomings of HPFS is that it requires a large amount of time to recover from a system crash, especially on large hard drives. JFS overcomes this by providing a robust, quick-to-restart, transaction oriented, log-based, high-performance, 32-bit file system for OS/2. JFS is tailored for the high throughput and reliability requirements of servers in the TCP/IP environment.
While that link is certainly relevant, it may be just a case of marketing not communicating with development. From a marketing perspective, if you want to sell OS/2, you say that it is using mainframe technology. Correspondingly, it may be rather awkward to say that AIX is using desktop technology.
In any case, it shouldn't matter. If their implementation of JFS is sufficiently generalized to work on OS/2, AIX, and Linux, then it is difficult to see how this technology depends essentially on the AT&T code base.
INTR is "Interactive Tech", which is only trading off the books. I did a finance.yahoo.com search for "InterTrust" and came up with nothing. I'd like to see the company profile, but I can't find it. Would you help us out here?
You can't license GPL software, even if it contains some of your code. Combing GPL software with commercial software is like combining anti-matter with matter--it goes poof. As soon as GPL software has been "polluted" with commercial software, the GPL has been revoked. This makes it so that there is no license to do anything with the GPLed portions of the code. So it seems logically that SCO cannot possibly license Linux. They can either enforce their copyright, assuming that the kernel contains SCO code improperly, and stop Linux distribution, or they can sit back and do nothing. Collecting money is not a legal option.
No education is uniquely appropriate to management
on
How to Become a PHB?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I know management that got there from all disciplines and walks of life. You don't get hired into management. You start with gruntwork and slowly demonstrate your ability to lead and manage.
Most top management I know started in a small company or division that got very large. Being one of the first people there let the pyramid structure of management fill in beneath them.
If you start out in a very established company that is unlikely to grow, then you are not likely to get promoted anytime soon. Given that not many companies are growing at the moment, this puts your chances of soon becoming a high-level manager very low.
Slashdot Mirror
People's complaints with RHAT's GPL compliance doesn't have anything to do with providing the source. It has to do with the bundling of RHEL with support contracts. The support contract restricts how many servers you can install RHEL on at once. By bundling RHEL with a support contract that restricts redistribution, RHEL itself violates the GPL.
You should see the recent postings of yoyotogoismyname. He was a well known SCOX long on the Yahoo Finance board, and has clearly had a change of heart about SCO's future based on BayStar's investment.
It isn't specific what the trademarks were. But given the launch of this service, I'm guessing it included "Mozilla" related trademarks but not "Netscape" related trademarks. Details here.
I thought the Mozilla foundation now owns the "Netscape" trademark. Am I wrong?
Now do you remember?
You know how every politician complains about "corruption of the system" while claiming to be above it all? Well, companies are similarly two-faced about abuses of patents. Jeff Bezos helped form a committee some time ago to combat the abuses of patents. The hypocricy was quite apparent. Here you had the man behind the most absurd of recent patents--one click shopping--claiming to be behind patent reform.
Even if Microsoft loses billions of dollars on this case, they will not want patents to go away. They may want "reform" of the system, where reform is custom tailors to uphold Microsoft's patents, but invalidate everyone elses. Never will Microsoft say, "You know, maybe we shouldn't have a patent on typing notification over IM." To truly want reform, they will have to call for an end to all patent abuses, especially their own.
Microsoft will forever be too proud to let this happen. This is the same company that still denies being a monopoly, let alone abusing their monopoly position, even after both have been settled in the court of law!
This is one guy, not a corporation representing a group of money-grubbing shareholders. As others have mentioned before, this person simply hates Microsoft. I imagine he would rather stop the distribution of IE and not get a dime than be bought out for a few measly millions of dollars.
Dear Mr. Darl McBride,
Your position: "If there is even a single line of code copied from SysV to Linux via SGI, SCO is entitled to billions of dollars from SGI. Furthermore, IBM must also pay billions of dollars even though they did no copying. Finally, those who used this code in good faith must pay a substantial run-time only licensing fee to SCO even after the code is completely removed."
My position: "You're the fucking moron."
Two small points. First, I don't believe for a second that Gnome crashes every ten minutes. You need something to back this up other than hearsay.
Secondly, TeX existed long before MS Office, and MS Office has never replaced its functionality. The closest thing to replace its functionality is mathml.
- No SYSV code has been misappropriated into Linux and SCO gets nothing, or
- Some code has been misappropriated into Linux and SCO gets full damages.
The real truth is likely between these two, and much closer to (1). The factors that limit damages SCO might be able to collect from SGI include:- The amount of copied code was small,
- The code copied was not unique or vital--it had been implemented elsewhere and thus cannot be worth much more than the alternative implementations,
- The infringement was not willful, and
- That the code even infringes is not obvious. The actual code has been available to many parties in various stages of openness.
It's possible that there is infringement but that SCO is entitled to so little compensation that they effectively get nothing.How this does help SCO is by allowing them to demonstrate that their misrepresentation of rights was not willful. It will be more difficult for IBM and RHAT to collect damages from SCO if SCO's allegations had any base, as trivial and insignificant as it was.
Notice how SCO didn't trumpet SGI's violations to the press. It took a more circuituous route of notifying SGI privately, and letting SGI spread the news themselves. Though there was much speculation, nothing was official until SGI's 10K. My guess is that SCO is starting to learn that trumpeting litigous claims to the press is not the way to proceed. I guess they are tired of defending against Landham (sp?) Act violations.
(I originally posted this to finance yahoo message board, but it is appropriate here.)
Probably the Yahoo stock board. I imagine he's trolling for highly recommended posts on the stock board, and reposting them here as his own for karma.
He did the same thing to me, see this message from this same story.
You should know that this person is taking highly rated comments from the Yahoo finance message board and posting them on slashdot without proper attributions. I wrote the text in the above comment on the Yahoo finance message board as jqtechworker. You can see the original post here. I do not mind that my words have been copied. But fucking christ, at least reference the link and author.
Here is the original post.
Our company is getting ready to send someone over to India to head up some outsourcing. He's British, but that should not be any significant difference. I haven't heard of any barrier for foreigners working in India. Anyone care to cite some relevant Indian law, rather than a few words at the tail end of an article?
C I was blocked starting on August 12th, and the temporary restraining order was issued August 21st. How come Red Hat or IBM or any other interested party can't act with such celerity in getting SCO to close its trap?
Not sure the exact quote, but when people pointed out the fallacious examples, SCO said, "We think we know our own code."
However, their claims contradict this. Crucial to their suit is the fact that they did not know that there was UNIX code in Linux prior to all this litigation. If they did know that, then they willingly released their code under the GPL.
Perhaps they've learned a bunch about their code in the past few months, but if their developers did stuff like ripping out BSD advertising clauses many years ago, I don't see how the new management would be privy to it.
Basically, it seems that Red Hat is selling their ES software only if it is coincident with a support contract. That is fine. But to restrict in any way redistribution of the software is not allowed. So the support contract cannot say anything about "additional servers", if it is to be compatible with the GPL. Of course, if the support contract was not tied to the distribution of ES, then I think it would be fine, since they would not be sold as a single product.
In any case, it shouldn't matter. If their implementation of JFS is sufficiently generalized to work on OS/2, AIX, and Linux, then it is difficult to see how this technology depends essentially on the AT&T code base.
And it goes like this for Apple:
Here's your list of gotchas. Read it carefully before proceeding.
INTR is "Interactive Tech", which is only trading off the books. I did a finance.yahoo.com search for "InterTrust" and came up with nothing. I'd like to see the company profile, but I can't find it. Would you help us out here?
You can't license GPL software, even if it contains some of your code. Combing GPL software with commercial software is like combining anti-matter with matter--it goes poof. As soon as GPL software has been "polluted" with commercial software, the GPL has been revoked. This makes it so that there is no license to do anything with the GPLed portions of the code. So it seems logically that SCO cannot possibly license Linux. They can either enforce their copyright, assuming that the kernel contains SCO code improperly, and stop Linux distribution, or they can sit back and do nothing. Collecting money is not a legal option.
I know management that got there from all disciplines and walks of life. You don't get hired into management. You start with gruntwork and slowly demonstrate your ability to lead and manage.
Most top management I know started in a small company or division that got very large. Being one of the first people there let the pyramid structure of management fill in beneath them.
If you start out in a very established company that is unlikely to grow, then you are not likely to get promoted anytime soon. Given that not many companies are growing at the moment, this puts your chances of soon becoming a high-level manager very low.