It's not just DVDs, they believe that with ANY digital content (that needs to create a copy of itself in order to play), it should be illegal to make backup copies. Here is why (in their lawyeristic minds anyway).
In the 1909 Copyright ammendment, there was a stipulation that regulated ANY copies of copyrighted work. Before this the law only covered any copies that were either published or distributed. So, instead of having unregulated rights to create personal copies, there is a fair use right to have the ability to create a backup of copyrighted work.
Here is where it gets interesting, they found a loophole in the copyright act in reguards to digital content - according to the copyright "owners" when you access something that is in digital content, whether it be a DVD, mp3 file, Internet webpage, software program, etc. The device changing it from digital into something that a person can view must make a copy of the digital content "in memory" in order to process the content.
So when you watch a DVD movie, the DVD player reads the encrypted digital content from the disk, converts it into something that will be output to the TV (making a copy). Thus, when you make a copy of a DVD, the player would then make a copy of a copy which is not legal unless given permission from the content owner (fat chance).
If you want an in depth explanation of this read the book "Free Culture" by Lawrence Lessig (www.free-culture.cc).
As far as I can understand, this is the only way software companies can get away with bypassing copyright law and use EULAs when distributing their software with all sorts of restrictions, some even un-constitutional (allowing search and seizure with a court order).
Anyway, until the Copyright Act includes unregulated copying to allow viewing of the copyright contents, I believe the courts would probably rule that you cannot make a backup of a Digital work, just because everyone is so worried about the letter of the law instead of the intent of the law.
just make a registry file to add info into hkey_local_machine\software\microsoft\windows\curr ent version\run key. (hint: this works on any windoze box when done as administrator)
Instead of messing with the registry, download the Excellent Startup Control Panel from Mike Lin's Home Page. This little Utility is an excellent way to control what does and does not execute on Windows startup. Using this utility you will be amazed at what processes are automatically started, some programs, like roxio's crap, will start 3-5 processes at Windows Startup.
It is also an excellent way to very quickly see if any Adware/Spyware is installed without running Adaware or Spybot.
The ebookman is alright, although the battery life sucks. I did convert many a book to the ebookman format grab them here and still use it now from time to time
But, I wish franklin never sold the Rocket ebook to RCA (they total screwed it up). The original Rocket Ebook totally rocked, it had everything on the list except it was not a PDA, but in its prime about 4-5 years ago there was a killer website that users contributed ebooks to.
The software that came with the Rocket Ebook was superb, it was extrememly easy to convert books with it since you could import both txt and html files, great for storing some heated Slashdot articles i might add.
Anyway, even though I have a ebookman and a craptacular WindowsCE PDA, I always use my Rocket ebook for any long term reading, it just simply rocks. The only thing I wish they changed was the weight, but since it goes over 12hours per charge, I cannot complain to much:-)
You can still grab one now and again on ebay, and in case you are wondering there are a few Linux Programs available to both communicate with the Rocket Ebook, and also to create new books with.
So the fact that copyright law doesn't give anyone the "right" to restrict usage doesn't mean they can't do it. You don't need an explicit right to do everything.
It does mean that they can not restrict usage! The whole idea of copyright is that the consumer has all rights to the product, except for what the copyright law has given the producer (i.e. redistribution) What the major Corporations have done is that they changed the scope of Copyright in that they believe that all the rights are theirs (not the consumers) EXCEPT what is written in the Copyright Laws.
Copyright was established to promote the science and arts by giving certain rights to the authors for a limited time to sell their works. No provision was given for physical limits on works, thus the law should be defaulted on the side of the PUBLIC, not the creator.
Also the Rolls Royce analagy is a straw-dog argument. I am not justifying anyone to go out and steal intellectual property. I am however saying it is wrong for any Industry to bypass the Current laws in order to control the public, such as adding encrypted keys to a DVD just to view said works.
Copyright is for a limited time (for now anyway) and the creation of DRM nullifies Copyright in its current form.
With all of this Digital Rights Management in the U.S. being developed I cannot help but think of how the content producers have acquired the "RIGHT" to add access control to works ??
I just looked over the Copyright laws (www.copyright.gov) and I cannot find any laws that permit the copyright holder to impose their own controls on the actual product. All I could find are laws that allow the Producer the rights to either reproduce, distribute, perform the work publicly or make derivative works.
There is no basis for the ability to control how the works should be viewed, heard, etc. It only covers who has the right of redistribution, etc. In fact copyright laws actually give certain rights of redistribution to the purchasers of copyrighted material, such as fair use.
Also, fair use is only applied if you want to redistribute the work (part of the work) or make a derivative work to the object in question. What you do with the content you purchased in your own home, as long as you do not redistribute or make a derivative work that you plan to distribute, is perfectly legal (or was anyway).
To put technological limits on how I use works that I purchase is beyond the scope of Copyright and is therefore (or should be) outlawed.
Am I way off base with my thinking in this matter ??
Why did the interviewer stop and only harp on the one question of viewing movies under Linux ?
What about:
What is the use of the Region Codes, especially on old DVDs, (and how can the MPAA create their own copyright laws like this - totally bypassing the current laws) ?
How did the movie industry become what it is today, especially knowing it was founded by people frustrated by the control of Thomas Edison and decided to create an organization to fight that control ?
How exactly does the MPAA view copyright, is your definition include total control of anything you create, not just redistribution ? What about fair use ? Or better yet what about unregulated uses, such as me watching a DVD I bought on a toaster if I wanted to ?
Reguarding your title of your reply, Microsoft had nothing to do with the limited conventional memory available.
IBM was in fact "to blame" for only 640K of memory, but at the time (1980) when the IBM Home computer was being deigned the unit was to be based on the 8088 CPU which had a powerfull feature (at the time) of addressing up to 1024K of RAM.
When designing a computer, it is kind of like desinging a community in SimCity, everything must be zoned so certain functions will not step on other functions.
As it was with the first home computers -
0K-640K Users Programs 640K-768K Video RAM 768K-1024K Reserved Area
So if you were implying that MS was responsible for the 640K Limit, you are wrong.
This has been continuously brought up, but never happens.
Example complaints:
2001 - If Linux had a better web browser I would switch - Mozilla came, then konqueror became better, no one switched.
2002 - If Linux had better looking fonts I would switch - KDE started to support Font Antialiasing, GNOME shortly after - Font rendering became much better in Linux than Windows (even beating out ClearType), still no one switched.
2003 - If Linux had Microsoft Office I would switch - OpenOffice had become a very good replacement suite and Crossover offers ability to run MS Office under Linux, still no one switched.
These arguments are getting very old, very quick. I have been happily using Linux exclusively for over 3 years and it is very usable today for everybody, but people are too lazy to learn anything new so they just throw out complaints about Linux stating if X would happen I would switch. X is constantly happening and hardly anyone is switching.
I believe until the Hardware vendors start fully supporting Linux, Linux will be a niche market. And in order for that to happen, the Hardware Vendors are going to have to swallow the bullet and start opening up their interfaces to their Hardware.
Microsoft was forced to NOT install Internet Explorer on new computers by the courts, I believe the Win95b version had IE installed by default, win95c was the version that was released because of the courts.
The problem, though was when you first turned on a computer with windows 95c installed, the Internet Explorer setup would automatically begin, and the only way to stop it was to ctl-alt-del and kill the setup program.
So, no matter what the courts will tell Microsoft to do or not to do, Microsoft's Lawyers will find a loophole so they can do whatever they want anyway.
The only "features" that are somewhat missing, is a nice looking interface under MS Windows (see below), and a ton of pre-created images, templates, web sites, etc. (not that anyone ever uses these anyways.
Something to consider though are the features OpenOffice.org has that MS Office doesn't. Such as, licensing issues, ability to create documents using the stylist (awesome feature), and IMHO once you learn to use OOo, it is actually easier to use than at least MS Office 2K (I never had the need to get Office XP)
As for the nice looking interface issue, Ximian has created an awesome looking theme for OpenOffice.org, and I happened to create a theme based on these icons for Windows users. Check it out at my website
There are a few issues with themeing currently, such as not being able to use png files, etc. But these issues are being worked on.
I am also starting to create some content for Draw that I will donate back to the project so it can be used instead of MS Visio.
All in all the future looks very bright for OpenOffice.org !!
I have read a few articles on this, and most misrepresent why this could be very bad from a security issue as compared to Open Source Software.
First, just because you can see the code does not make a product less secure (in theory anyway). With Open Source Software, everyone can see the code and find flaws, but anyone can also submit a patch to fix the flaws.
With this Microsoft source code, anyone can find flaws and security issues, but NO-ONE would dare to send Microsoft a patch in fear of litigation.
The installer is very sufficient, just because it does not install a cookie cutter installation does not mean it is bad.
In fact, I believe Debian has a great installation / package management system in the fact that you can easily script a Debian Install (great for OEMs). To see what I mean, I created a Debian Sarge Install guide using very simple apt-get scripts, and I am in the process of creating scripts for different types of servers that I use/sell as my business.
Check out my install guide at
www.pcc-services.com/files/debian_install.pdf.
As for the issue of stable being used for multiple years, I also like this fact. I make a living on supporting computer network systems, and I have used other Linux Distributions, and everytime I wish I hadn't because of their release schedules. Most Distros release 2 or 3 "Stable" Releases a year. I cannot keep up with them since things change with each release. If I try, not only do I waste countless hours figuring out what has changed with each release, but I cannot possibly reliably support every version of the Distribution when the release schedule is like it is. Also, I have tried to stick with only a certain version of Distributions, but the way people are, they think that if there is a new version out that their servers need to be on the current version.
So, what I decided to do as a computer consulting business is to standardize on one Distribution, which will be Debian Sarge (when released) until the next stable version of Debian is released. Since my main source of income is in fact Servers, this should suit my business well.
I noticed this happening yesterday on my WinXP machine. After clicking Start->Programs and right-clicking on any icon, c:\windows\explorer.exe attempts to connect to crl.verisign.com [198.49.161.200], port 80.
Now let me get this straight, even if you are not using a web browser, or doing anything related to the Internet, this still happens ?
Who in the heck does Microsoft have coding their products ? And what else does Windows XP do without your knowledge ?
Let Microsoft do all the Linux Advertising for the Open Source Community !
No one believes anything that Microsoft Says anymore, and hardly anyone of the general population knows of anything else to use, until Microsoft's Ad campaign goes into full effect!
This campaign gives me all the advertising / evidence I need to let my customers know that Linux is enterprise ready and here to stay, and a viable alternative to virus/adware/reboot ridden Microsoft Products.
(well, sans the customized OpenOffice which is one of the key perks of Ximian)
This one makes no sense because they are using debian sarge as their base. Debian Sarge does implement all of the ximian patches into its openoffice.org version. Why would Xandros not include the Debian Sarge version since those patches, although adds little functionality to Openoffice.org, does make it seem quite a bit easier to run because of all of the prety butans.
They are, actualy 1 guy is. This is exactly what is meant when people talk about malicious applications of patent. He has no desire or goal but to cause Microsoft pain. And while all the./ crowd is in their mom's basement giggling and pretending that xbox doesn't own them; if this can be done to a company with nearly endless resources to throw at the problem, what'll happen when someone comes for your free software?
It is very scary that a single person can extort a half of a billion dollars from one of the most powerfull (if not the most powerfull) company on the face of the earth.
Software Patents must be repealed !
If you want more info on the whole story check out Jeffrey Zelman's site here.
and also that just because Caldera released kernel source under that license does
not mean that the whole codebase (not just what was republished) should also be GPL'd.
I agree totally with this statement. The problem I have is that their lawyers made this statement, but are using their licensce agreement with IBM to argue that ALL IBM contributed code to Linux is their copyright, because some code was included into Unix.
Before IBM put ANY code into Linux they made damn sure that it only contained code they created, and no system V or any other Unix code.
For SCO's lawyers to say that they OWN any IBM code that was added to AIX by IBM is simply ridiculous and just shows that SCO's lawyers will say anything (true or not) to help them with their case.
Their lawyers remind me of my 15yr old daughter who contradicts herself constantly if she thinks it will help her in getting what she wants.
Over the past few months, the SCO (Santa Cruz Operation) Corporation (formerly Caldera International, Inc. a Linux distribution vendor) has been complaining about violations of its Copyright works by the Linux kernel code.
Recently, Darl McBride, the Chief Executive Officer of SCO has been making pejorative statements regarding the license used by the Linux kernel, the GNU GPL. In a keynote speech he recently said:
"At the end of the day, the GPL is not about making software free; it's about destroying value."
In light of this it is the depths of hypocrisy that at the same event SCO also announced the incorporation of the Samba3 release into their latest OpenServer product. Samba is an Open Source/Free Software project that allows Linux and UNIX servers to interoperate with Microsoft Windows clients. The reason for this is clear; Samba3 allows Linux and UNIX servers to replace Microsoft Windows NT Domain Controllers and will add great value to any Operating System which includes it. However, Samba is also developed and distributed under the GNU GPL license, in exactly the same manner as the Linux kernel code that SCO has been criticizing for its lack of care in ownership attribution.
We observe that SCO is both attacking the GPL on the one hand and benefiting from the GPL on the other hand. SCO can't have it both ways. SCO has a clear choice: either pledge not to use any Open Source/Free Software in any of their products, or actively participate in the Open Source/Free Software movement and reap the benefits. For SCO to continue to use Open Source/Free Software while attacking others for using it is the epitome of hypocrisy.
The strength of Open Source/Free Software is that it is available to all without restrictions on fields of endeavor, as the Samba Team believes the ability to freely use, modify and learn from software code is one of the grounding principles of computer science, and a basic freedom for all.
Because of this, we believe that the Samba must remain true to our principles and be freely available to use even in ways we personally disapprove of.
Even when used by rank hypocrites like SCO.
Jeremy Allison, Marc Kaplan, Andrew Bartlett, Christopher R. Hertel, Jerry Carter, Jean Francois Micouleau, Paul Green, Rafal Szczesniak.
Samba Team.
Microsoft.com is down, as is Windowsupdate !
on
LovSan Clone Let Loose
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I was updating a couple computers tonight, and at 10:20 Central Time, windows update worked great. At 10:30 windows update and microsoft.com website is unaccessible.
Yes, (well according to Bruce Perens) if you buy a license from SCO, you are in breach of the GPL.
Here is an except from his Open Source "State of the Union Address (from newsforge)
SCO has recently announced a so-called "license" for Linux. The absurdity of this should be obvious, but let's touch upon a legal aspect. Every party who enters into this license will be in violation of the GPL, and in infringement of the collective copyrights of the Linux and GNU system authors. As a customer, if you purchase the SCO license, you can be sued by every copyright holder who has contributed to the Linux kernel and other components of the system. You can be sued by IBM, by Red Hat, by me, by tens of thousands of people and companies. Of course, nobody's going to buy an license for software that SCO doesn't own anyway, so it's just hollow posturing.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly, and everyone knows it too. Their stock price is just about the same level as when this whole thing got started.
I would bet the judge isn't too happy about all of this either, as his/her case load is probably heavy.
If I was a betting man, the more stunts SCO pulls like this, the better the chances of this getting thrown out with extreme predjudice.
It's not just DVDs, they believe that with ANY digital content (that needs to create a copy of itself in order to play), it should be illegal to make backup copies. Here is why (in their lawyeristic minds anyway).
In the 1909 Copyright ammendment, there was a stipulation that regulated ANY copies of copyrighted work. Before this the law only covered any copies that were either published or distributed. So, instead of having unregulated rights to create personal copies, there is a fair use right to have the ability to create a backup of copyrighted work.
Here is where it gets interesting, they found a loophole in the copyright act in reguards to digital content - according to the copyright "owners" when you access something that is in digital content, whether it be a DVD, mp3 file, Internet webpage, software program, etc. The device changing it from digital into something that a person can view must make a copy of the digital content "in memory" in order to process the content.
So when you watch a DVD movie, the DVD player reads the encrypted digital content from the disk, converts it into something that will be output to the TV (making a copy). Thus, when you make a copy of a DVD, the player would then make a copy of a copy which is not legal unless given permission from the content owner (fat chance).
If you want an in depth explanation of this read the book "Free Culture" by Lawrence Lessig (www.free-culture.cc).
As far as I can understand, this is the only way software companies can get away with bypassing copyright law and use EULAs when distributing their software with all sorts of restrictions, some even un-constitutional (allowing search and seizure with a court order).
Anyway, until the Copyright Act includes unregulated copying to allow viewing of the copyright contents, I believe the courts would probably rule that you cannot make a backup of a Digital work, just because everyone is so worried about the letter of the law instead of the intent of the law.
Instead of messing with the registry, download the Excellent Startup Control Panel from Mike Lin's Home Page. This little Utility is an excellent way to control what does and does not execute on Windows startup. Using this utility you will be amazed at what processes are automatically started, some programs, like roxio's crap, will start 3-5 processes at Windows Startup.
It is also an excellent way to very quickly see if any Adware/Spyware is installed without running Adaware or Spybot.
5) This still won't hold a standard Movie DVD.
DVD Shrink
- (sorry, windows only app.)
The ebookman is alright, although the battery life sucks. I did convert many a book to the ebookman format grab them here and still use it now from time to time
But, I wish franklin never sold the Rocket ebook to RCA (they total screwed it up). The original Rocket Ebook totally rocked, it had everything on the list except it was not a PDA, but in its prime about 4-5 years ago there was a killer website that users contributed ebooks to.
The software that came with the Rocket Ebook was superb, it was extrememly easy to convert books with it since you could import both txt and html files, great for storing some heated Slashdot articles i might add.
Anyway, even though I have a ebookman and a craptacular WindowsCE PDA, I always use my Rocket ebook for any long term reading, it just simply rocks. The only thing I wish they changed was the weight, but since it goes over 12hours per charge, I cannot complain to much :-)
You can still grab one now and again on ebay, and in case you are wondering there are a few Linux Programs available to both communicate with the Rocket Ebook, and also to create new books with.
It does mean that they can not restrict usage! The whole idea of copyright is that the consumer has all rights to the product, except for what the copyright law has given the producer (i.e. redistribution) What the major Corporations have done is that they changed the scope of Copyright in that they believe that all the rights are theirs (not the consumers) EXCEPT what is written in the Copyright Laws.
Copyright was established to promote the science and arts by giving certain rights to the authors for a limited time to sell their works. No provision was given for physical limits on works, thus the law should be defaulted on the side of the PUBLIC, not the creator.
Also the Rolls Royce analagy is a straw-dog argument. I am not justifying anyone to go out and steal intellectual property. I am however saying it is wrong for any Industry to bypass the Current laws in order to control the public, such as adding encrypted keys to a DVD just to view said works.
Copyright is for a limited time (for now anyway) and the creation of DRM nullifies Copyright in its current form.
With all of this Digital Rights Management in the U.S. being developed I cannot help but think of how the content producers have acquired the "RIGHT" to add access control to works ??
I just looked over the Copyright laws (www.copyright.gov) and I cannot find any laws that permit the copyright holder to impose their own controls on the actual product. All I could find are laws that allow the Producer the rights to either reproduce, distribute, perform the work publicly or make derivative works.
There is no basis for the ability to control how the works should be viewed, heard, etc. It only covers who has the right of redistribution, etc. In fact copyright laws actually give certain rights of redistribution to the purchasers of copyrighted material, such as fair use.
Also, fair use is only applied if you want to redistribute the work (part of the work) or make a derivative work to the object in question. What you do with the content you purchased in your own home, as long as you do not redistribute or make a derivative work that you plan to distribute, is perfectly legal (or was anyway).
To put technological limits on how I use works that I purchase is beyond the scope of Copyright and is therefore (or should be) outlawed.
Am I way off base with my thinking in this matter ??
Why did the interviewer stop and only harp on the one question of viewing movies under Linux ?
What about:
What is the use of the Region Codes, especially on old DVDs, (and how can the MPAA create their own copyright laws like this - totally bypassing the current laws) ?
How did the movie industry become what it is today, especially knowing it was founded by people frustrated by the control of Thomas Edison and decided to create an organization to fight that control ?
How exactly does the MPAA view copyright, is your definition include total control of anything you create, not just redistribution ? What about fair use ? Or better yet what about unregulated uses, such as me watching a DVD I bought on a toaster if I wanted to ?
Reguarding your title of your reply, Microsoft had nothing to do with the limited conventional memory available.
IBM was in fact "to blame" for only 640K of memory, but at the time (1980) when the IBM Home computer was being deigned the unit was to be based on the 8088 CPU which had a powerfull feature (at the time) of addressing up to 1024K of RAM.
When designing a computer, it is kind of like desinging a community in SimCity, everything must be zoned so certain functions will not step on other functions.
As it was with the first home computers -
0K-640K Users Programs
640K-768K Video RAM
768K-1024K Reserved Area
So if you were implying that MS was responsible for the 640K Limit, you are wrong.
This has been continuously brought up, but never happens.
Example complaints:
2001 - If Linux had a better web browser I would switch - Mozilla came, then konqueror became better, no one switched.
2002 - If Linux had better looking fonts I would switch - KDE started to support Font Antialiasing, GNOME shortly after - Font rendering became much better in Linux than Windows (even beating out ClearType), still no one switched.
2003 - If Linux had Microsoft Office I would switch - OpenOffice had become a very good replacement suite and Crossover offers ability to run MS Office under Linux, still no one switched.
These arguments are getting very old, very quick. I have been happily using Linux exclusively for over 3 years and it is very usable today for everybody, but people are too lazy to learn anything new so they just throw out complaints about Linux stating if X would happen I would switch. X is constantly happening and hardly anyone is switching.
I believe until the Hardware vendors start fully supporting Linux, Linux will be a niche market. And in order for that to happen, the Hardware Vendors are going to have to swallow the bullet and start opening up their interfaces to their Hardware.
Microsoft was forced to NOT install Internet Explorer on new computers by the courts, I believe the Win95b version had IE installed by default, win95c was the version that was released because of the courts.
The problem, though was when you first turned on a computer with windows 95c installed, the Internet Explorer setup would automatically begin, and the only way to stop it was to ctl-alt-del and kill the setup program.
So, no matter what the courts will tell Microsoft to do or not to do, Microsoft's Lawyers will find a loophole so they can do whatever they want anyway.
The only "features" that are somewhat missing, is a nice looking interface under MS Windows (see below), and a ton of pre-created images, templates, web sites, etc. (not that anyone ever uses these anyways.
Something to consider though are the features OpenOffice.org has that MS Office doesn't. Such as, licensing issues, ability to create documents using the stylist (awesome feature), and IMHO once you learn to use OOo, it is actually easier to use than at least MS Office 2K (I never had the need to get Office XP)
As for the nice looking interface issue, Ximian has created an awesome looking theme for OpenOffice.org, and I happened to create a theme based on these icons for Windows users. Check it out at my website
There are a few issues with themeing currently, such as not being able to use png files, etc. But these issues are being worked on.
I am also starting to create some content for Draw that I will donate back to the project so it can be used instead of MS Visio.
All in all the future looks very bright for OpenOffice.org !!
I have read a few articles on this, and most misrepresent why this could be very bad from a security issue as compared to Open Source Software.
First, just because you can see the code does not make a product less secure (in theory anyway). With Open Source Software, everyone can see the code and find flaws, but anyone can also submit a patch to fix the flaws.
With this Microsoft source code, anyone can find flaws and security issues, but NO-ONE would dare to send Microsoft a patch in fear of litigation.
The installer is very sufficient, just because it does not install a cookie cutter installation does not mean it is bad.
In fact, I believe Debian has a great installation / package management system in the fact that you can easily script a Debian Install (great for OEMs). To see what I mean, I created a Debian Sarge Install guide using very simple apt-get scripts, and I am in the process of creating scripts for different types of servers that I use/sell as my business.
Check out my install guide at www.pcc-services.com/files/debian_install.pdf.
As for the issue of stable being used for multiple years, I also like this fact. I make a living on supporting computer network systems, and I have used other Linux Distributions, and everytime I wish I hadn't because of their release schedules. Most Distros release 2 or 3 "Stable" Releases a year. I cannot keep up with them since things change with each release. If I try, not only do I waste countless hours figuring out what has changed with each release, but I cannot possibly reliably support every version of the Distribution when the release schedule is like it is. Also, I have tried to stick with only a certain version of Distributions, but the way people are, they think that if there is a new version out that their servers need to be on the current version.
So, what I decided to do as a computer consulting business is to standardize on one Distribution, which will be Debian Sarge (when released) until the next stable version of Debian is released. Since my main source of income is in fact Servers, this should suit my business well.
Check out Marvin the Web Server.
I noticed this happening yesterday on my WinXP machine. After clicking Start->Programs and right-clicking on any icon, c:\windows\explorer.exe attempts to connect to crl.verisign.com [198.49.161.200], port 80.
Now let me get this straight, even if you are not using a web browser, or doing anything related to the Internet, this still happens ?
Who in the heck does Microsoft have coding their products ? And what else does Windows XP do without your knowledge ?
Let Microsoft do all the Linux Advertising for the Open Source Community !
No one believes anything that Microsoft Says anymore, and hardly anyone of the general population knows of anything else to use, until Microsoft's Ad campaign goes into full effect!
This campaign gives me all the advertising / evidence I need to let my customers know that Linux is enterprise ready and here to stay, and a viable alternative to virus/adware/reboot ridden Microsoft Products.
The MPAA wants us to believe that region coding only existance is to allow them to release movies at different times in different parts of the world.
But why are old movies region encoded ?
Even DVDs of movies from the 60s and 70s are region coded !
(well, sans the customized OpenOffice which is one of the key perks of Ximian)
This one makes no sense because they are using debian sarge as their base. Debian Sarge does implement all of the ximian patches into its openoffice.org version. Why would Xandros not include the Debian Sarge version since those patches, although adds little functionality to Openoffice.org, does make it seem quite a bit easier to run because of all of the prety butans.
They are, actualy 1 guy is. This is exactly what is meant when people talk about malicious applications of patent. He has no desire or goal but to cause Microsoft pain. And while all the ./ crowd is in their mom's basement giggling and pretending that xbox doesn't own them; if this can be done to a company with nearly endless resources to throw at the problem, what'll happen when someone comes for your free software?
It is very scary that a single person can extort a half of a billion dollars from one of the most powerfull (if not the most powerfull) company on the face of the earth.
Software Patents must be repealed !
If you want more info on the whole story check out Jeffrey Zelman's site here.
and also that just because Caldera released kernel source under that license does not mean that the whole codebase (not just what was republished) should also be GPL'd.
I agree totally with this statement. The problem I have is that their lawyers made this statement, but are using their licensce agreement with IBM to argue that ALL IBM contributed code to Linux is their copyright, because some code was included into Unix.
Before IBM put ANY code into Linux they made damn sure that it only contained code they created, and no system V or any other Unix code.
For SCO's lawyers to say that they OWN any IBM code that was added to AIX by IBM is simply ridiculous and just shows that SCO's lawyers will say anything (true or not) to help them with their case.
Their lawyers remind me of my 15yr old daughter who contradicts herself constantly if she thinks it will help her in getting what she wants.
Damn straight! That fucking Bush!
He will always be damned for signing the DMCA into law!
I'm sorry to break it to you, but CLINTON signed the DMCA into law.
---Letter Ripped off of Linux Today---
:
Over the past few months, the SCO (Santa Cruz Operation) Corporation (formerly Caldera International, Inc. a Linux distribution vendor) has been complaining about violations of its Copyright works by the Linux kernel code.
Recently, Darl McBride, the Chief Executive Officer of SCO has been making pejorative statements regarding the license used by the Linux kernel, the GNU GPL. In a keynote speech he recently said
"At the end of the day, the GPL is not about making software free; it's about destroying value."
In light of this it is the depths of hypocrisy that at the same event SCO also announced the incorporation of the Samba3 release into their latest OpenServer product. Samba is an Open Source/Free Software project that allows Linux and UNIX servers to interoperate with Microsoft Windows clients. The reason for this is clear; Samba3 allows Linux and UNIX servers to replace Microsoft Windows NT Domain Controllers and will add great value to any Operating System which includes it. However, Samba is also developed and distributed under the GNU GPL license, in exactly the same manner as the Linux kernel code that SCO has been criticizing for its lack of care in ownership attribution.
We observe that SCO is both attacking the GPL on the one hand and benefiting from the GPL on the other hand. SCO can't have it both ways. SCO has a clear choice: either pledge not to use any Open Source/Free Software in any of their products, or actively participate in the Open Source/Free Software movement and reap the benefits. For SCO to continue to use Open Source/Free Software while attacking others for using it is the epitome of hypocrisy.
The strength of Open Source/Free Software is that it is available to all without restrictions on fields of endeavor, as the Samba Team believes the ability to freely use, modify and learn from software code is one of the grounding principles of computer science, and a basic freedom for all.
Because of this, we believe that the Samba must remain true to our principles and be freely available to use even in ways we personally disapprove of.
Even when used by rank hypocrites like SCO.
Jeremy Allison,
Marc Kaplan,
Andrew Bartlett,
Christopher R. Hertel,
Jerry Carter,
Jean Francois Micouleau,
Paul Green,
Rafal Szczesniak.
Samba Team.
I was updating a couple computers tonight, and at 10:20 Central Time, windows update worked great. At 10:30 windows update and microsoft.com website is unaccessible.
Nothing, Nada.
I guess in a weird sort of way, its ironic.
Yes, (well according to Bruce Perens) if you buy a license from SCO, you are in breach of the GPL.
Here is an except from his Open Source "State of the Union Address (from newsforge)
SCO has recently announced a so-called "license" for Linux. The absurdity of this should be obvious, but let's touch upon a legal aspect. Every party who enters into this license will be in violation of the GPL, and in infringement of the collective copyrights of the Linux and GNU system authors. As a customer, if you purchase the SCO license, you can be sued by every copyright holder who has contributed to the Linux kernel and other components of the system. You can be sued by IBM, by Red Hat, by me, by tens of thousands of people and companies. Of course, nobody's going to buy an license for software that SCO doesn't own anyway, so it's just hollow posturing.