Okay..so if the former Caldera released and open sources stuff and the current Caldera (SCO) does not subscribe to this belief, can they legally change the terms by which the former Caldera already released the code?
Beside which, I think that it is the duty of the IP holder to identify when someone infringes with the IP (since unless you sign that nasty NDA you can safely say that you haven't been authorized to look at proprietary code). You would think that since they know who had access to the IP rights, they could identify the offending developer, company.
I find the whole SCO vs IBM case an interesting matter. I see that rather than fight the fight in court, the two are fighting it in the open, getting people to comment on the flaws in the case correcting as they go along (can you say ammended complaint).
Hate to sound like a business weenie, but in the aftermatch of the Dot Com bust, if you aren't getting paid for the driver, how do you support the cost of distributing this driver (a web site and bandwidth do cost money)?
If you are in school and doing so in your off time then this is a good educational learning experience helpful to your future work expierence.
If you are working for someone doing something while you are suppose to be working on something for them, then that sounds like you are distracted from what you are hired to work on.
But ultimately, how do you afford to eat?
I agree that more appropriate business models may be necessary.
Gets flame resistant suit on (and no I'm not intentionally trolling, but some may view it as such)
Okay for all the cons such as
Companies being able to identify who I am,
Companies being able to disable software
Requires a third party authentication server
Locking into a specific platform to view/listen to certain things.
Adds an additional layer to software and OSes.
Can we also think of the pros about DRM technologies.
It can help prevent viri (unless you have a DRM enabled virii:-) from making changes to things it's not suppose to.
It can help make sure that I am who I say I am and not some cracker trying to steal my identity. (Although I'm sure it's only a matter of time before this is hacked too, but then the DMCA prevents that right 8-)
If I have something I don't want others to see (say a journal, a proprietary idea, medical records, bank records, etc), it can prevent unauthorized individuals from seeing it.
It can actually help (but not totally) prevent piracy (I know some may view this as a con, but I see this as a viable pro; although I accept that piracy does happen, there is no way of preventing it from happening. If you spent time and money producing something and distribute it as such, you should get paid for it or the service it provides)
I know much of this sounds like PR speak (I don't work for any hardware, BIOS, or OS maker), but think about it.
In the beginning...Sun made AWT and it was very low level hardward/OS linked.
Then came Swing, which was more abstract, higher level, and less hardware specific, with more functionality in some areas and less in others.
Then came SWT, which came about to increase speed by moving closer to the lower level APIs, to avoid lots of bloat, to be closer to host OS look and feel, and once again more hardware/OS specific and this was good..
--- Sun doesn't plan on abandoning its development all together (see Project Rave) I beleive it is suppose to be a new IDE implementation, but still based on Netbean foundation.
New Java Specification Request also include a common java ide plugin standardization, so this may be another reason they are doing some of this.
Any good referenencs, books, links, etc that you can suggest to point out what kind of things "programmer(s) in their right mind uses" to avoid these type of problems??
I'm sure there are a lot of folks out there that are not as wise as many of the programming gurus out there, that could benefit from such information.
Since SCO is selling "Binary Licenses" does this imply that whenever one of these licensees downloads and installs a new version of the kernel, they now would no longer be covered by the previously defined licenses agreement?
Does SCO now own the copyrights, that it just obtained on code, to cover all the source in question including code which may have been linux derrivates (I would assume this is based on their original and not recent ones that aren't "tainted by linux"? Does that mean all of the linux code code be seen as a copyright now owned by SCO?
Hmmm...so the solution is to removed the JFS, NUMA, RCU, and SMP support right?
Aren't some of these, tied to the hardware itself and not specific to the software? To interact with hardware correctly, you have to follow specific procedures (I have to load an instruction to the processor, I have to execute the instruction in the processor, I have to read the output of the processor, etc)..
--
Is it possible some of the comments were used as a place older to implement similar functionality? That said, does saying you want to implement a specific type of functionality naturally make you derrived from the original function?
I'm sure it's not an issue of when something is PUBLIC DOMAIN, but the concept is the same...
Hypothetically, when something previously kept secret is out in the open and is said to be secret material...how does one revert currently opened secret back to secret?
It doesn't seem plausible to make something secret again.
I guess in this case the only thing that can be done is to
accept that the secret is public and sue the day lights out of whom ever made it public (which is SCOs current method)
give the secret to the public, (which SCO is not doing)
identify the openly public secret and have said secret removed (which seems likely in the open source world, once secret is publicly identified)
realize that SCO is the source of releasing the secret
Okay...in keeping with the common thread...what are the legal rights regarding displaying or showing of proprietary information?
If something is made available to the public improperly, then is the displayed content made invalidated since it would be difficult to take back every CD, book, CVS tree that contains this material
Are there time limitations on how long something in the public eye exists in the public and still keep it proprietary?
If Calderis/SCO inserted the code, then would the case be thrown out?
If it is in fact just comments and not code, is it still covered in this instance, since although the idea may be present, the actual functionality is not necessarily included and would not effect the actual OS itself.
5. SCO took from Linux code and put into SCO code.
Questions or relevance
on
Latest SCO News
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
So the questions are:
Did SCO or previous code owner put in the source into Linux?
Did IBM put in the source into Linux
Did some non-business associated hacker put in the source into Linux
The source happen to be developed parallel and not be copied at all (if you are both working on something that flies through the air, there's the possiblity you could make a jet plane, a helicopter, or a glider; the jet plane and helicopter aren't the same, but the glider and the jet plane are close enough that the maker one could say they were copying)
Re:Is Mozilla slated to get a translator?
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that if you get Netscape (not mozilla) that under the View or Go menu, there is a translate option...however, I don't have netscape 6.x+ installed here to verify that..
I think that would also require know what portion of code is in violation..Beside that, there are quite a number of developers working on the linux source. That is still a little easier said than done..
I think this was previously mentioned in a past post about the SCO vs IBM case, but which IP are they suppose to have been abused?
While reading the case
41. Shared libraries are by their nature unique creations based on various decisions to write code in certain ways, which are in great part random decisions of the software developers who create the shared library code base. There is no established way to create a specific shared library and the random choices in the location and access calls for "hooks" that are part of the creation of any shared library. Therefore, the mathematical probability of a customer being able to recreate the SCO OpenServer Shared Libraries without unauthorized access to or use of the source code of the SCO OpenServer Shared Libraries is nil.
If someone compiles something with these shared libraries, does that make that derrived work dependent upon the share code and subject to having used the shared library IP?
If someone creates a compile (say gcc), including its own libraries (say libc), it does not then violated source code duplication, unless code was used in the compiler or library....right?
If someone creates something that has the same interfaces (say posix) as someone else, is that subject to violation?
It makes reference to 4000 applications written for SCO OpenServer. Are any of these specifically gnu related applications which are ported to a given platform? Does that mean if something was written for a different platform, is it subject to the same viloations?
50. As SCO was poised and ready to expand its market and market share for UnixWare targeted to high-performance enterprise customers, IBM approached SCO to jointly develop a new 64-bit UNIX-based operating system for Intel-based processing platforms. This joint development effort was widely known as Project Monterey
53. Specifically, plaintiff and plaintiff's predecessor provided IBM engineers with valuable information and trade secrets with respect to architecture, schematics, and design of UnixWare and the UNIX Software Code for Intel-based processors.
So does this mean they provided any sort of possible NDA Intel information to IBM? Did SCO in turn violate any agreements with Intel in doing so?
Are schematics and design IP? By that I mean, if I write something that conforms to a specific design or schematic, am I in violation? Or since it is new code, is it not in violation?
Has IBM developed any 64-bit UNIX for the PowerPC chip line?
AIX is not currently on the Intel platform correct?
54. By about May 2001, all technical aspects of Project Monterey had been substantially completed. The only remaining tasks of Project Monterey involved marketing and branding tasks to be performed substantially by IBM.
55. On or about May 2001, IBM notified plaintiff that it refused to proceed with Project Monterey, and that IBM considered Project Monterey to be "dead." In fact, in violation of its obligations to SCO, IBM chose to use and appropriate for its own business the proprietary information obtained from SCO.
So was anything ever done with Project Monterey? Did IBM ever produce a 64-bit Intel platform product? Perhaps this would be a breach of contract between IBM and SCO, but is it a violation if one decides after working on something not to follow through for other reasons such as performance, or outdated by something else?
If IBM felt that Linux was a better platform to make a 64-bit Unix then Unixware, etc, then this doesn't seem to be a violation to move to that platform verses SCOs derrived platform.
However, if while analizing the platform, they found weaknesses or strengths in the product, does that count as a violation since it is derrived from SCO work? If that was then feed into so
While reading up on this SCO article, I noticed the following diagram. Isn't this diagram derrived from another source? Does that mean they are doing something against copyright or some such matters?
I know there was an article about this history diagram some time back but can't find it at the moment...
Just curious...how can they prevent the Chinese from building the binary? Are they leaving bits of code out to prevent it from compiling? Does it require a compiler other than Visual Studios?
If this is basically the shared source that MS currently provides in the US, isn't it possible for any US citizen and/or the government to get the source in the same manner?
I wonder if the Chinese will follow the user agreement:-)
Isn't this likely really just internationalizing the Shared Source initiative?
Does this mean anyone looking at the source code cannot in good concious work on Linux?
Or will they intentionally put MS proprietary functionality to be included into Linux and then MS will have a legal leg to pursue the linux world (yes the conspiracy theorist in me comes out:-) for some patent violation?
Does this mean that for them to develop on it they will have to have a MS Platform to develope on which requires a MS purchase?
It would be platform independent if M$ allows people like the Mono project to develop the necessary foundation to do so. My fear is that M$ will squash it.
On another note....What in the world is all this talk about Linux and Java have to do with this thread? Is the intent to prove that the.NETs patient is not valid because something else similar existed prior to it like Java or Linux? And has a patient for any of these already been submitted?
Can we bring it back to what the article is about...
Slashdot Mirror
Nope...it's better than the soaps...
Actually my original comments were target towards SCOs case...not IBMs case.
Case and point..SGI as orignator of some of the code and now SCO may focus on them some more...
Okay..so if the former Caldera released and open sources stuff and the current Caldera (SCO) does not subscribe to this belief, can they legally change the terms by which the former Caldera already released the code?
Beside which, I think that it is the duty of the IP holder to identify when someone infringes with the IP (since unless you sign that nasty NDA you can safely say that you haven't been authorized to look at proprietary code). You would think that since they know who had access to the IP rights, they could identify the offending developer, company.
Okay so if SGI is the perpetrator of some of the infringing lines of code, why are they suing IBM again?
I find the whole SCO vs IBM case an interesting matter. I see that rather than fight the fight in court, the two are fighting it in the open, getting people to comment on the flaws in the case correcting as they go along (can you say ammended complaint).
Maybe SCO isn't so dumb after all.
Hate to sound like a business weenie, but in the aftermatch of the Dot Com bust, if you aren't getting paid for the driver, how do you support the cost of distributing this driver (a web site and bandwidth do cost money)?
If you are in school and doing so in your off time then this is a good educational learning experience helpful to your future work expierence.
If you are working for someone doing something while you are suppose to be working on something for them, then that sounds like you are distracted from what you are hired to work on.
But ultimately, how do you afford to eat?
I agree that more appropriate business models may be necessary.
I've no great feeling either way but...
:-) from making changes to things it's not suppose to.
Gets flame resistant suit on (and no I'm not intentionally trolling, but some may view it as such)
Okay for all the cons such as
Companies being able to identify who I am,
Companies being able to disable software
Requires a third party authentication server
Locking into a specific platform to view/listen to certain things.
Adds an additional layer to software and OSes.
Can we also think of the pros about DRM technologies.
It can help prevent viri (unless you have a DRM enabled virii
It can help make sure that I am who I say I am and not some cracker trying to steal my identity. (Although I'm sure it's only a matter of time before this is hacked too, but then the DMCA prevents that right 8-)
If I have something I don't want others to see (say a journal, a proprietary idea, medical records, bank records, etc), it can prevent unauthorized individuals from seeing it.
It can actually help (but not totally) prevent piracy (I know some may view this as a con, but I see this as a viable pro; although I accept that piracy does happen, there is no way of preventing it from happening. If you spent time and money producing something and distribute it as such, you should get paid for it or the service it provides)
I know much of this sounds like PR speak (I don't work for any hardware, BIOS, or OS maker), but think about it.
In the beginning...Sun made AWT and it was very low level hardward/OS linked.
Then came Swing, which was more abstract, higher level, and less hardware specific, with more functionality in some areas and less in others.
Then came SWT, which came about to increase speed by moving closer to the lower level APIs, to avoid lots of bloat, to be closer to host OS look and feel, and once again more hardware/OS specific and this was good..
There are always differences, and more differences
---
Sun doesn't plan on abandoning its development all together (see Project Rave) I beleive it is suppose to be a new IDE implementation, but still based on Netbean foundation.
New Java Specification Request also include a common java ide plugin standardization, so this may be another reason they are doing some of this.
Any good referenencs, books, links, etc that you can suggest to point out what kind of things "programmer(s) in their right mind uses" to avoid these type of problems??
I'm sure there are a lot of folks out there that are not as wise as many of the programming gurus out there, that could benefit from such information.
Since SCO is selling "Binary Licenses" does this imply that whenever one of these licensees downloads and installs a new version of the kernel, they now would no longer be covered by the previously defined licenses agreement?
Does SCO now own the copyrights, that it just obtained on code, to cover all the source in question including code which may have been linux derrivates (I would assume this is based on their original and not recent ones that aren't "tainted by linux"? Does that mean all of the linux code code be seen as a copyright now owned by SCO?
This might need to be expanded some...
When a person shares a file...when is this allowed to be legitamate sharing of files, since fair use is almost done away with by the DMCA.
Hmmm...so the solution is to removed the JFS, NUMA, RCU, and SMP support right?
Aren't some of these, tied to the hardware itself and not specific to the software? To interact with hardware correctly, you have to follow specific procedures (I have to load an instruction to the processor, I have to execute the instruction in the processor, I have to read the output of the processor, etc)..
--
Is it possible some of the comments were used as a place older to implement similar functionality? That said, does saying you want to implement a specific type of functionality naturally make you derrived from the original function?
Hypothetically, when something previously kept secret is out in the open and is said to be secret material...how does one revert currently opened secret back to secret?
It doesn't seem plausible to make something secret again.
I guess in this case the only thing that can be done is to
Okay...in keeping with the common thread...what are the legal rights regarding displaying or showing of proprietary information?
If something is made available to the public improperly, then is the displayed content made invalidated since it would be difficult to take back every CD, book, CVS tree that contains this material
Are there time limitations on how long something in the public eye exists in the public and still keep it proprietary?
If Calderis/SCO inserted the code, then would the case be thrown out?
If it is in fact just comments and not code, is it still covered in this instance, since although the idea may be present, the actual functionality is not necessarily included and would not effect the actual OS itself.
Oh yeah...and
5. SCO took from Linux code and put into SCO code.
I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that if you get Netscape (not mozilla) that under the View or Go menu, there is a translate option...however, I don't have netscape 6.x+ installed here to verify that..
I think that would also require know what portion of code is in violation..Beside that, there are quite a number of developers working on the linux source. That is still a little easier said than done..
By Hour Might be better...as the conference occurred, much negative movement began..
I think this was previously mentioned in a past post about the SCO vs IBM case, but which IP are they suppose to have been abused?
While reading the case
41. Shared libraries are by their nature unique creations based on various decisions to write code in certain ways, which are in great part random decisions of the software developers who create the shared library code base. There is no established way to create a specific shared library and the random choices in the location and access calls for "hooks" that are part of the creation of any shared library. Therefore, the mathematical probability of a customer being able to recreate the SCO OpenServer Shared Libraries without unauthorized access to or use of the source code of the SCO OpenServer Shared Libraries is nil.
If someone compiles something with these shared libraries, does that make that derrived work dependent upon the share code and subject to having used the shared library IP?
If someone creates a compile (say gcc), including its own libraries (say libc), it does not then violated source code duplication, unless code was used in the compiler or library....right?
If someone creates something that has the same interfaces (say posix) as someone else, is that subject to violation?
It makes reference to 4000 applications written for SCO OpenServer. Are any of these specifically gnu related applications which are ported to a given platform? Does that mean if something was written for a different platform, is it subject to the same viloations?
50. As SCO was poised and ready to expand its market and market share for UnixWare targeted to high-performance enterprise customers, IBM approached SCO to jointly develop a new 64-bit UNIX-based operating system for Intel-based processing platforms. This joint development effort was widely known as Project Monterey
53. Specifically, plaintiff and plaintiff's predecessor provided IBM engineers with valuable information and trade secrets with respect to architecture, schematics, and design of UnixWare and the UNIX Software Code for Intel-based processors.
So does this mean they provided any sort of possible NDA Intel information to IBM? Did SCO in turn violate any agreements with Intel in doing so?
Are schematics and design IP? By that I mean, if I write something that conforms to a specific design or schematic, am I in violation? Or since it is new code, is it not in violation?
Has IBM developed any 64-bit UNIX for the PowerPC chip line?
AIX is not currently on the Intel platform correct?
54. By about May 2001, all technical aspects of Project Monterey had been substantially completed. The only remaining tasks of Project Monterey involved marketing and branding tasks to be performed substantially by IBM.
55. On or about May 2001, IBM notified plaintiff that it refused to proceed with Project Monterey, and that IBM considered Project Monterey to be "dead." In fact, in violation of its obligations to SCO, IBM chose to use and appropriate for its own business the proprietary information obtained from SCO.
So was anything ever done with Project Monterey? Did IBM ever produce a 64-bit Intel platform product? Perhaps this would be a breach of contract between IBM and SCO, but is it a violation if one decides after working on something not to follow through for other reasons such as performance, or outdated by something else?
If IBM felt that Linux was a better platform to make a 64-bit Unix then Unixware, etc, then this doesn't seem to be a violation to move to that platform verses SCOs derrived platform.
However, if while analizing the platform, they found weaknesses or strengths in the product, does that count as a violation since it is derrived from SCO work? If that was then feed into so
Just looking at the site about the web server for it and found a comparison of a number of symbian based smart phones
What other good sites, where you can get more qualified reviewers, are there or that you use?
Well...the more restrictions they put...the more I think I should just stick with a VCR..
While reading up on this SCO article, I noticed the following diagram. Isn't this diagram derrived from another source? Does that mean they are doing something against copyright or some such matters?
I know there was an article about this history diagram some time back but can't find it at the moment...
Just curious...how can they prevent the Chinese from building the binary? Are they leaving bits of code out to prevent it from compiling? Does it require a compiler other than Visual Studios?
:-)
:-) for some patent violation?
If this is basically the shared source that MS currently provides in the US, isn't it possible for any US citizen and/or the government to get the source in the same manner?
I wonder if the Chinese will follow the user agreement
Isn't this likely really just internationalizing the Shared Source initiative?
Does this mean anyone looking at the source code cannot in good concious work on Linux?
Or will they intentionally put MS proprietary functionality to be included into Linux and then MS will have a legal leg to pursue the linux world (yes the conspiracy theorist in me comes out
Does this mean that for them to develop on it they will have to have a MS Platform to develope on which requires a MS purchase?
It would be platform independent if M$ allows people like the Mono project to develop the necessary foundation to do so. My fear is that M$ will squash it.
.NETs patient is not valid because something else similar existed prior to it like Java or Linux? And has a patient for any of these already been submitted?
On another note....What in the world is all this talk about Linux and Java have to do with this thread? Is the intent to prove that the
Can we bring it back to what the article is about...