As long as it does not violate the EULA. It is true that you purchased it, but "fair use" in this case does not include burning copies and selling them to your one thousand closest friends. When you think about it, this is the same concept behind Linux: You are allowed to make unlimited copies, install it on unlimited numbers of computers, and even look at the source code because WE GIVE YOU PERMISSION, not because you happen to hold a copy in your hands (never mind how the copy got there).
Yes, although if memory serves, EV1 also stated that their payment to SCO had something to do with an earlier settlement (at least that's what one of the press releases indicated).
It really sounds like both CA and EV1 are hedging their bets while being scared by SCO. If SCO wins, they can say that they knew it all along. If SCO loses, then they will write off their payments as unrelated to SCO's IP.
...only because it can then be used as a strategic platform to launch whatever we would need to explore the other planets in our system. We could establish a base on the moon, and then ship parts there to be assembled on-site, and launch at our discretion.
Considering the fundamental fact that the moon has about one-sixth of the gravitational pull of the Earth, numerous logistical details (fuel, distance needed to travel, transport, etc.) would be easier to handle (not easy, but easier).
...for actors who were screened out of a role to submit their own acting later on after the movie is out. They can send it to the casting person and say, "See? Stallone doesn't make such a great Terminator. *I* am the Terminator!!!" (Reference to "The Last Action Hero")
IANAL.
But suppose a case is brought to court that includes, as part of its collection of evidence, a Word document that tracks changes in much the same way that the Word document in the article apparently did.
Could a prosecutor who, for example, sees among the "invisible ink" Neo-Nazi writings by the accused, be able to use that as evidence against him? Could he furthermore deduce "motive" and "intent" from that evidence?
On one hand, he is able to glean the evidence simply because something *WAS* there. But that's just the problem: It was in the past, but it has been editted out and substituted by the weekly grocery list of the accused. Would he then be able to point to the "change log", so to speak, and build his case on that?
Not necessarily. I agree with you that this strategy could backfire, but only if people make the distinction between truth and fiction. Keep in mind that SCO's position is that Linux, an OSS, is in fact proprietary work. If there is a general acceptance of this nonsense, then OSS could be in for a tough ride. But if people could see that Linux is IN FACT open-source and that SCO's claim is false and baseless, then OSS stands to gain.
The distinction is not so much between open-source and proprietary software, but between what SCO is claiming and what is actually reality.
It is interesting to note that, whereas many have been paranoid about government's intention to censor speech and communication (which are ultimately made possible by the possession of information), now it appears that the right of possession of information may be on the verge of being controlled and censored - but with a twist. The bill would allow private companies to tie our hands while the government washes its own.
"During World War II, South African mathematician John Kerrich carried out 10,000 coin tosses while interned in a German prison camp. However, he didn't record which side the coin started on, so he couldn't have discovered the kind of bias the new analysis brings out."
I wonder how many geeks they put in jail to come up with the results in this paper...
From what I read in the newsgroup article, this sounds awfully like the "jail" feature in BSD. You can effectively set up entirely different machines using jails. You can reboot, configure, and manage individual jails just like zones.
Can anyone more knowledgeable comment on whether they use similar kinds of calls to set up a zone as opposed to a jail?
Isn't the gist of what he said pretty much the same thing that Darl says about Linux and its suppporters? i.e. We have to do what is right for our business and circumstances.
Now, it is interesting that he did voice support for open-source projects like Linux. But then he also affirms that his license is one of IP from SCO. Just sounds like he is trying to be a crowd pleaser and ended up with the wrong crowd.
...and Yahoo's article makes it sound like SCO's IP claims are in fact legitimate, and that Marsh was simply doing what needed to be done.
So a question might be asked whether EV1Server's subscribers should boycott EV1 or not. In theory, at least, the subscribers are now paying SCO to continue its legal slugfest, but is EV1 truly at fault for buying into SCO's FUDs?
I wonder if NASA had, at some point during the construction and testing of the rover, actually put the rover through a simulated Martian drive.
The reason is that, depending on the consistency and the texture of the Martian soil, you would probably want to build the rover somewhat differently if it's dry and dusty as opposed to rocky and uneven - much like how we build our cars and SUVs.
I suppose they probably still have data from the Vikings expeditions, but that is more than twenty years ago.
No, not comments. Those are just ignored when the source is compiled and then passed through the linker. You only get to see the comments when you have the source. (The machine wouldn't understand them, anyway.)
Microsoft does have its own proprietary file compression format called ".CAB" file that can hold amazing amount of stuff. I don't know what the ratio is, though.
But since all their work is closed-source, we are ultimately speculating.
As I recall, EULA contains clauses that prohibits reverse engineering or any such numb-skull pranks.
Any coder who has *THAT* much time on his/her hands (i.e. 40 million lines) should hop over to check out sendmail, or Apache, or any other OSS project going on, instead of wasting time on this nonsense.
First of all, look at the number of files and the amount of data that were leaked: Some 30,000 files, 660 MB worth of data. For reference, the entire source weighs in around 40 GB and 40 million lines of code. Then look at what portion of the OS it was taken from: Windows 2000 Service Pack 1, released around the end of 2000.
Now, before you start thinking "zero-day" or any such doomsday thought, keep in mind that this stuff is almost four years old and does not figure even 1% of the total code. If it had been a solid 50% of XP's or Server 2003's code, I can understand the concern.
The best response in this case is still: Keep patching those servers and workstations, and watch for announcements from Redmond. There is no need to be any more alarmist if you are already running Windows and are following good security practices.
...shredded and ripped apart by the well-known, full-contact sport known as "slashdotting".
Seriously, if this news proves to be true, it would actually do Windows some good in the long run. Maybe Bill actually *wanted* it leaked out, just so that he could reap some of the supposed benefits of open-source development.
Except that I don't know what prize is worth this amount of pain and suffering. To say nothing of killing your appetite as you head to aforementioned diner and order a burger and a side of chili.
I would be curious to see what the exact wording of an indemnification is, versus that of what RedHat is actually saying in its coverage.
What would also be interesting to see is how much of a Program (and by that term I refer to the paragraph immediately following Section 2 of the GPL) would have to be deemed "copyrighted" before RH decides to replace all the parts in the Program. (Compare two scenarios in which one versus three or four pieces of code is found to be "copyrighted".)
Slashdot Mirror
...at least until the verdict is announced and the last toilet is flushed at Lindon, Utah.
As long as it does not violate the EULA. It is true that you purchased it, but "fair use" in this case does not include burning copies and selling them to your one thousand closest friends. When you think about it, this is the same concept behind Linux: You are allowed to make unlimited copies, install it on unlimited numbers of computers, and even look at the source code because WE GIVE YOU PERMISSION, not because you happen to hold a copy in your hands (never mind how the copy got there).
Yes, although if memory serves, EV1 also stated that their payment to SCO had something to do with an earlier settlement (at least that's what one of the press releases indicated). It really sounds like both CA and EV1 are hedging their bets while being scared by SCO. If SCO wins, they can say that they knew it all along. If SCO loses, then they will write off their payments as unrelated to SCO's IP.
...only because it can then be used as a strategic platform to launch whatever we would need to explore the other planets in our system. We could establish a base on the moon, and then ship parts there to be assembled on-site, and launch at our discretion. Considering the fundamental fact that the moon has about one-sixth of the gravitational pull of the Earth, numerous logistical details (fuel, distance needed to travel, transport, etc.) would be easier to handle (not easy, but easier).
...for actors who were screened out of a role to submit their own acting later on after the movie is out. They can send it to the casting person and say, "See? Stallone doesn't make such a great Terminator. *I* am the Terminator!!!" (Reference to "The Last Action Hero")
IANAL. But suppose a case is brought to court that includes, as part of its collection of evidence, a Word document that tracks changes in much the same way that the Word document in the article apparently did. Could a prosecutor who, for example, sees among the "invisible ink" Neo-Nazi writings by the accused, be able to use that as evidence against him? Could he furthermore deduce "motive" and "intent" from that evidence? On one hand, he is able to glean the evidence simply because something *WAS* there. But that's just the problem: It was in the past, but it has been editted out and substituted by the weekly grocery list of the accused. Would he then be able to point to the "change log", so to speak, and build his case on that?
See RFC 3514 for more details. The MPAA did, and learned pretty quickly from it.
Woooowwwwwzzeerrrrrrsssssss!!!!!!
Not necessarily. I agree with you that this strategy could backfire, but only if people make the distinction between truth and fiction. Keep in mind that SCO's position is that Linux, an OSS, is in fact proprietary work. If there is a general acceptance of this nonsense, then OSS could be in for a tough ride. But if people could see that Linux is IN FACT open-source and that SCO's claim is false and baseless, then OSS stands to gain. The distinction is not so much between open-source and proprietary software, but between what SCO is claiming and what is actually reality.
It is interesting to note that, whereas many have been paranoid about government's intention to censor speech and communication (which are ultimately made possible by the possession of information), now it appears that the right of possession of information may be on the verge of being controlled and censored - but with a twist. The bill would allow private companies to tie our hands while the government washes its own.
"During World War II, South African mathematician John Kerrich carried out 10,000 coin tosses while interned in a German prison camp. However, he didn't record which side the coin started on, so he couldn't have discovered the kind of bias the new analysis brings out."
I wonder how many geeks they put in jail to come up with the results in this paper...
From what I read in the newsgroup article, this sounds awfully like the "jail" feature in BSD. You can effectively set up entirely different machines using jails. You can reboot, configure, and manage individual jails just like zones.
Can anyone more knowledgeable comment on whether they use similar kinds of calls to set up a zone as opposed to a jail?
Isn't the gist of what he said pretty much the same thing that Darl says about Linux and its suppporters? i.e. We have to do what is right for our business and circumstances.
Now, it is interesting that he did voice support for open-source projects like Linux. But then he also affirms that his license is one of IP from SCO. Just sounds like he is trying to be a crowd pleaser and ended up with the wrong crowd.
...and Yahoo's article makes it sound like SCO's IP claims are in fact legitimate, and that Marsh was simply doing what needed to be done.
So a question might be asked whether EV1Server's subscribers should boycott EV1 or not. In theory, at least, the subscribers are now paying SCO to continue its legal slugfest, but is EV1 truly at fault for buying into SCO's FUDs?
Just imagine Dilbert's boss asking him for a Beowulf cluster.
Kind of like that strip where he (the boss) wanted to have a SQL database in lime.
I wonder if NASA had, at some point during the construction and testing of the rover, actually put the rover through a simulated Martian drive.
The reason is that, depending on the consistency and the texture of the Martian soil, you would probably want to build the rover somewhat differently if it's dry and dusty as opposed to rocky and uneven - much like how we build our cars and SUVs.
I suppose they probably still have data from the Vikings expeditions, but that is more than twenty years ago.
Yes... even including boldface, italics, and underlines... maybe there is a table or a graph or two in there...
(Knowing MS, they'd probably bloat the thing to the n-th degree.)
No, not comments. Those are just ignored when the source is compiled and then passed through the linker. You only get to see the comments when you have the source. (The machine wouldn't understand them, anyway.)
Microsoft does have its own proprietary file compression format called ".CAB" file that can hold amazing amount of stuff. I don't know what the ratio is, though.
But since all their work is closed-source, we are ultimately speculating.
As I recall, EULA contains clauses that prohibits reverse engineering or any such numb-skull pranks.
Any coder who has *THAT* much time on his/her hands (i.e. 40 million lines) should hop over to check out sendmail, or Apache, or any other OSS project going on, instead of wasting time on this nonsense.
IANAL.
First of all, look at the number of files and the amount of data that were leaked: Some 30,000 files, 660 MB worth of data. For reference, the entire source weighs in around 40 GB and 40 million lines of code. Then look at what portion of the OS it was taken from: Windows 2000 Service Pack 1, released around the end of 2000.
Now, before you start thinking "zero-day" or any such doomsday thought, keep in mind that this stuff is almost four years old and does not figure even 1% of the total code. If it had been a solid 50% of XP's or Server 2003's code, I can understand the concern.
The best response in this case is still: Keep patching those servers and workstations, and watch for announcements from Redmond. There is no need to be any more alarmist if you are already running Windows and are following good security practices.
...shredded and ripped apart by the well-known, full-contact sport known as "slashdotting".
Seriously, if this news proves to be true, it would actually do Windows some good in the long run. Maybe Bill actually *wanted* it leaked out, just so that he could reap some of the supposed benefits of open-source development.
Well, hands-down, you get the prize, AFAIAC.
Except that I don't know what prize is worth this amount of pain and suffering. To say nothing of killing your appetite as you head to aforementioned diner and order a burger and a side of chili.
"Do you, Prescott Stephens, take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife?"
"I do."
"NOOO, according to my lie-detector glasses you are LYING!!!"
Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.
I would be curious to see what the exact wording of an indemnification is, versus that of what RedHat is actually saying in its coverage.
What would also be interesting to see is how much of a Program (and by that term I refer to the paragraph immediately following Section 2 of the GPL) would have to be deemed "copyrighted" before RH decides to replace all the parts in the Program. (Compare two scenarios in which one versus three or four pieces of code is found to be "copyrighted".)
From now on, each spammer convicted is required to eat one slice of spam for each email that he/she has ever sent. And eat nothing else.
Let's see that slice multiplied by 200 million or so and see how the spammer likes it.