Although I'm not sure, I assume this is due to changes in the SPF format. I created my records many moons ago, and now I (nor the automated checking tools) don't even recognize the new format.
With the freezing, the errors should be getting less soon.
No definitive interpretation by a court has been made.
Considering how widely used the GPL is, the fact that it (almost) never made it to court shows how clear the GPL is. It are (usually) the ambiguous texts that need a court to explain what the text means.
Lessig quotes newsforge as the source, and there indeed the "open source advocates" do apear in the quote. So this is eighter an error of newsforge, or, SCO goofed up, but later corrects the mistake.
And newsforge copies SCO's text just before SCO corrects the error.
But you are right, on SCO's site the "open source advocates" do not apear.
It's a sistem whereby you, the domain-owner, via DNS records, explains what SMTP-servers (their IP adresses) are allowed to send email with your domain in the From: header.
To me it really does look like a way to kill spam, if it were adopted.
Linux could not have used any Minix code as even the earliest version of Linux was GPLd
The first release of Linux had a licence
that permited everything except making money on Linux. That was quicly (0.12, december 1991) changed to GPL.
See for example here.
Version 0.12 got GPL.
Yeah, SCO seem to have a short memory. This is what they said before: SCO argues that if Linux distributors are so confident that no infringement has occurred, they should indemnify their end users for any liability.
I guess loads of people will moan about not being able to illegaly copy. But why would it be bad if technology allows the wishes of the copyright owner to be enforcerd.
What to me is *much* worse, is when these DRM techniques disable me (honest linux user, strictly using Free software), to do things MS users can. I might *want* to pay for a film/song, but if the technology disables me from vieuwing it, I'll have to become a criminal.
Fortunaltely, the requirements, as stated in the.pdf, are:
Content Company Requirements for Digital Tansmission
* Stated Requirement:
"Keep honest people honest" * Specific Requirements: [...]
I mean, we can start paching the nameservers etc, letting verisign change the IP number, and pach them again.
But if enough ISP's or other people with big servers are infuriated by this, why not create a new set of root DNS servers (that get their data from the verisign ones, but filter out the * records), and then replace the current list of root servers in the bind config files with the new ones? No paching of bind, and verisign would learn a nice lesson.
A term in any contract, including any NDA, as stipulated by any party, which would obligate the other party to not report a violation of law, either statute or criminial, is PER SE unlawful
So, sure, you're allowed to report it -- but were you allowed to find out whether they violated the law in the first place?
BTW, Darl, I'm looking for a new job. Considering that I have no legal
experience whatsoever, can think of loads of silly lawsuits in under
5 minutes (see above), I think I'll fit in perfectly with your legal team.
They knew in the middle ages that the black plague was being spread by the rats. Some towns cleaned up the sewers, and the water systems and killed off as many rats as they could find, those towns did relatively well during the plague. There were other towns that were convinced that the plague was sent by God (and maybe it was) and refused to clean or do anything about it, and those towns were wiped from the map.
They knew in the eighties-nineties that viruses are spread by unsecure software. Some sites cleaned up the systems, and killed of as many insecure OSes they could find, those sites did reasonably well during virus-attacs. There were other sites that were convinced that viruses are sent by God (and maybe they are), and refused to clean or do anything about them. Those sites should be wiped out from the net.
I don't see anything in his account of the problem that indicates the spam was sent from his domain - only that his domain was listed as a return address.
Isn't that exactly what SPF is supposed to control?
the site explains quite clearly it is to avoid spammers (from unknown IP adresses) from claiming that "From" (or "ReternTo: ") adresses are inside your domain.
kernel 2.5 isn't a "clean room" rewrite, after all.
I don't think you need "clean room" rewrites to avoid copyrights, only to avoid patents and the likes. But as far as I know, all the patents are owned by IBM anyway.
(IANAL eighter)
/arch/ia64/sn/io/ate_utils.c?
And I thought SCO doesn't run on any 64 but arch? Can anyone explain how we copied code for 64 bit arch processors from SCO sources, of all places?
OK, they are saying they own the copyright of it because it's in SYSV code which they didn't write, but by some contract own anyway. Is that it?
OK, I'm apparently not a rocket scientist, so I'm not that good at grepping, but I cannot find anything resembling the code from the.jpg image in linux-2.6.0-test3.
In 2.4.20, yes, I see it's in linux-2.4.20/arch/ia64/sn/io/ate_utils.c.
But when grepping all files of the 2.6.0-test3 kernel, I cannot find anything resembling the cited code.
Have been trying:
find . -type f | xargs grep -5 ' for *(.*bp'
find . -type f | xargs grep -5 ' mapstart'
find . -type f | xargs grep -5 'while(.*bp-1'
and a few others.
Also, can anyone explain why the `copyrighted' code comes from the ia64 arch code in linux 2.4.20? Apparently SCO isn't yet able to run on 64 bit processors, so how come we illegally coppied it from SCO of all places?
(and, yes, in 2.2.25 I couldn't find the code eighter)
Slashdot Mirror
173 parse with errors
Although I'm not sure, I assume this is due to changes in the SPF format. I created my records many moons ago, and now I (nor the automated checking tools) don't even recognize the new format.
With the freezing, the errors should be getting less soon.
Considering how widely used the GPL is, the fact that it (almost) never made it to court shows how clear the GPL is. It are (usually) the ambiguous texts that need a court to explain what the text means.
But you are right, on SCO's site the "open source advocates" do not apear.
They'll think Mozilla really could be sued by MS, because they're both Web browsers..
Probably you're right, they probably won't notice eighter that Mozilla (Netscape) was created *before* IE.
Everyone knows that giving away programs for free is unconstitutional, and, consequently, all shareware programs are owned by SCO.
I guess Google is going to use the cash from the IPO to buy microsoft:).
I gues they deleted their .MP3 files, after they created .OGG files. That way, you can have twice as much music at about the same quality:).
I haven't seen SPF being mentioned yet.
It's a sistem whereby you, the domain-owner, via DNS records, explains what SMTP-servers (their IP adresses) are allowed to send email with your domain in the From: header.
To me it really does look like a way to kill spam, if it were adopted.
here it is.
Even if you do have a compilable version of the sourcecode, you cannot be totally sure:
See Ken Thompson's brilliant backdoor in gcc
Linux could not have used any Minix code as even the earliest version of Linux was GPLd
The first release of Linux had a licence that permited everything except making money on Linux. That was quicly (0.12, december 1991) changed to GPL. See for example here. Version 0.12 got GPL.
Yeah, SCO seem to have a short memory. This is what they said before:
SCO argues that if Linux distributors are so confident that no infringement has occurred, they should indemnify their end users for any liability.
I guess loads of people will moan about not being able to illegaly copy. But why would it be bad if technology allows the wishes of the copyright owner to be enforcerd.
.pdf, are:
What to me is *much* worse, is when these DRM techniques disable me (honest linux user, strictly using Free software), to do things MS users can. I might *want* to pay for a film/song, but if the technology disables me from vieuwing it, I'll have to become a criminal.
Fortunaltely, the requirements, as stated in the
Content Company Requirements for Digital Tansmission
* Stated Requirement:
"Keep honest people honest"
* Specific Requirements:
[...]
(page 11 of the document).
So I guess we're OK then??? (Hope so).
I mean, we can start paching the nameservers etc, letting verisign change the IP number, and pach them again.
But if enough ISP's or other people with big servers are infuriated by this, why not create a new set of root DNS servers (that get their data from the verisign ones, but filter out the * records), and then replace the current list of root servers in the bind config files with the new ones? No paching of bind, and verisign would learn a nice lesson.
A term in any contract, including any NDA, as stipulated by any party, which would obligate the other party to not report a violation of law, either statute or criminial, is PER SE unlawful
So, sure, you're allowed to report it -- but were you allowed to find out whether they violated the law in the first place?
You still cannot reliably backup PostgreSQL databases
What's wrong with pg_dump(1)?
BTW, Darl, I'm looking for a new job. Considering that I have no legal experience whatsoever, can think of loads of silly lawsuits in under 5 minutes (see above), I think I'll fit in perfectly with your legal team.
If linux is the platform, what is M$'s stake?
MS is re-selling the Linux-licenses it's recently bought from SCO.
They knew in the eighties-nineties that viruses are spread by unsecure software. Some sites cleaned up the systems, and killed of as many insecure OSes they could find, those sites did reasonably well during virus-attacs. There were other sites that were convinced that viruses are sent by God (and maybe they are), and refused to clean or do anything about them. Those sites should be wiped out from the net.
Isn't that exactly what SPF is supposed to control?
the site explains quite clearly it is to avoid spammers (from unknown IP adresses) from claiming that "From" (or "ReternTo: ") adresses are inside your domain.
And I thought SCO doesn't run on any 64 but arch? Can anyone explain how we copied code for 64 bit arch processors from SCO sources, of all places?
OK, they are saying they own the copyright of it because it's in SYSV code which they didn't write, but by some contract own anyway. Is that it?
But I cannot find code resembling the mentioned offending code in linux-2.6.0-test3.
OK, I'm not a rocket scientist, so maybe I'm not very good at grepping. Any rocket scientists around here?
In 2.4.20, yes, I see it's in linux-2.4.20/arch/ia64/sn/io/ate_utils.c.
But when grepping all files of the 2.6.0-test3 kernel, I cannot find anything resembling the cited code.
Have been trying:
find . -type f | xargs grep -5 ' for *(.*bp'
find . -type f | xargs grep -5 ' mapstart'
find . -type f | xargs grep -5 'while(.*bp-1'
and a few others.
Also, can anyone explain why the `copyrighted' code comes from the ia64 arch code in linux 2.4.20? Apparently SCO isn't yet able to run on 64 bit processors, so how come we illegally coppied it from SCO of all places?
(and, yes, in 2.2.25 I couldn't find the code eighter)