I mean like beagle isnt using its flashram anymore, just go and jack some off it. While your at it TAG the Beagle with some PRO-US graffiti:) hell maybe its got nicer rims too
Seriously, can you imagine the first manned expiditon seeing the Beagle Jacked up, tagged , up on little martian cinderblocks, All that and we already got a head start on building martian cities
What, like this?
(from a comment in an earlier article).
Yeah, that always pisses me off, I mean, I lug around my computer with its UPS squealing for half an hour just so that I don't have to restart X, and when I get to the podium, I discover that the projector won't accept a 90Hz signal and I've gotta restart X.
:o)
I know you are being funny, but I recall one particular instance when I had to give a demonstration to a visiting VIP at very short notice. My machine was the only one that had the necessary software installed, so I grabbed my machine and headed over to the building where the demonstration was to be given. I had never connected this particular machine to that (or any) projector before, so didn't have any appropriate settings in my X configuration file. Trying to get the correct settings by editing the file manually and constantly starting and restarting X just doesn't make a good impression.
Once I got it all set up, the presentation went very well, fortunately.
Laptops run at 60Hz by default as TFT's have long enough persistance that higher refresh rates arn't neccesary, the same as projectors - so when is this ever an issue?
When you are connecting a desktop machine to the projector.
That's a great shame (the brush offs, not reading/.).
Good letter, anyway. Unlike some of the earlier comments in this article, I think it was a perfectly professional response. It's quite right to point out to people that your time is valuable.
...do you suppose that one side effect of this could be a fork?
No. If there is code in the kernel that shouldn't be there, it will be taken out and replaced in the main distribution. Linus isn't going to allow SCO to charge people to use his kernel.
Anyone bothering to send that letter off to their congresscritters should think again. All you're doing is wasting your congresscritter's time and resources responding to a challenge they can do nothing about.
It is rarely a waste of time to write to your elected representatives. Even if they can do nothing in individual cases, it alerts them to your concerns and gives them a better idea about what issues are important to you.
There are a number of benefits that can come from this. Most obvious, of course, is that if lots of their constituents are telling them similar things, they may be motivated enough to do something about it and fix the law or have a quiet word with someone influential enough to do something about it.
Other less direct benefits can also result, however. If legislation comes up in future which impacts on the issue, they will already be aware of your feelings. If public consultations on related issues are launched, they are likely to tell you ahead of time (easy brownie points for them!) rather than letting you find out from the news when the deadline has closed and the results are announced.
So, if the next government tries to implement legislation to make IP claims immune from counter-suits (or some similarly silly scheme), and if you have already written to your representative to let them know how badly SCO is behaving, they might just pay a little more attention to the text of the bill and be ready to challenge the underlying assumptions.
As always though, it's better to write in your own words rather than just to send off some standard form. They want to know what you think, not what people who you agree with think.
Having not really looked at any of {Free|Net|Open}BSD, I found the article quite interesting. The bit that really stood out, though, was the fact that the BSDs don't use quite as much GNU software (ls and libc are mentioned).
It is precisely because of the GNU software that comes with all Linux distributions as standard that I prefer Linux to the "real" Unixes (Solaris, Irix, etc.).
GNU software is really high quality. I now really begrudge every minute I spend working on old Unix machines where programs like sed have arbitrary line length limits. It's the GNU part of Linux that makes it great (sorry Linus). I really know sod all about the kernel, but the GNU/Linux combination works for me.
I've seen other licenses that say, "The author warrants that this code is his to release, and assumes sole liability if it isn't."
I think the GPL really ought to say something like that.
Why? What incentive is there for an author to do that? If I take some random GPLd software, make some modifications and redistribute it under the terms of the GPL, why would I make any warranties about the code that I originally modified?
SCO are going to be hammered for this whole saga. I don't think there is too much danger of other companies trying for a repeat performance. I suspect SCO would never have started this if they knew where it was going to lead - they probably just thought there was some easy money for the taking - but they've backed themselves into a very nasty corner now.
The FSF have challenged numerous GPL violations. The FSF don't back down (this is RMS's beliefs and values at stake). The GPL has not been tested in court. These three things are enough to give you the answer. In every case, the violaters have backed down! The GPL is an exceptionally elegant piece of work. It hasn't been tested in court because no-one is insane enough to challenge it in court.
The NYPD has had an active anti-piracy campaign for years. I took part in a raid that included the NYPD, a couple of Feds and a handful of MPAA people
The difference here is that the RIAA are not doing this with the assistance of the LAPD of the Feds.
Indeed, the police aren't at all impressed by the sound of it. From the article: "But if an anti-piracy team crossed the line between looking like cops and implying or telling vendors that they are cops, the Los Angeles Police Department would take a pretty dim view, said LAPD spokesman Jason Lee".
Therefore legally speaking the statement is true..."
The direct quote would almost certainly be "We *are* the police" (present tense). If someone walked up to you and said "We were the police [...], now hand over your stuff", I hope you'd have the good sense to laugh at them!
" Blackmail or extortion to regain stolen property is usually not held in violation of extortion laws. My guess would be this would be the same".
In the case of tangible property, you may perhaps be correct - but blackmail to retrieve "intellectual property"? That's got to be illegal. A few thugs walking up to someone and demanding that they hand over physical media (which are most certainly not the property of the RIAA, else there would be no copyright infringement) is extortion. I would expect the courts to be most unhappy with this.
"if the RIAA agents are saying things like "If you don't hand over this copyrighted material now, we will have you arrested on charges of copyright violation", then that's most certainly legal".
If you don't [do something we want], we will have you [experience bad things]. Blackmail. Illegal.
I didn't deny that there are violent gangs involved in bootlegging. I do however dispute the assertion that *all* bootleggers are connected to violent gangs.
"It is logical deduction that where ever illegal money is to be made its location will be competed over. They will compete better if well organised. Bigger rewards will attract more intelligent, more forceful and more violent gangs. Bootleg music/movies attract very high revenue streams."
Legitimate music/movies also attract very high revenue streams. Your logic would imply that the MPAA and RIAA should also resort to the use of force to protect their markets... Hey, you could be on to something here!
"I supose bending the words fits in better with your supporting these violent people"
I'm not bending any words. Four unsubstantiated statements of yours implied that all bootleggers are connected to violence. I disagree. Now, speaking of bending words, would you care to point out where I expressed any support for violent people (see you are at it again, assumptions of guilt in connection with violent crime just because they are selling CDs - if they are guilty of violence, prove it (as you say did at the market, very commendable)).
Or perhaps you feel we should just abandon the idea of due process. How about a new justice: Some <ethnic minority|majority of your choice> are violent criminals therefore hired thugs should be able to rough up all <ethnic minority|majority of your choice>.
"... they are nasty characters helping violent criminal gangs..."
"These are people that scare intimidate others..."
"If the violent gang down me street..."
"... defend the violent gangs' right to break the law..."
And where exactly is your evidence that all people selling bootleg albums are connected to violent gangs? Since when has large scale copyright infringement automatically been deemed to be a violent act?
China has practically the same policy, but it's because it's in their national interest. [...] Given this diverse set of ideaologies with the same policy, I conclude that this policy has nothing to do with ideology.
I am a vegetarian; I do not believe that it is right to eat animals - my ideology. I had a friend who did not eat meat for medical reasons - purely pragmatic, nothing to do with anybody's ideology. Although the outcome was the same (neither of us eating meat), the fact that he abstained for purely pragmatic reasons did not negate my moral stance. Similarly, the fact that China does not recognize copyright for purely pragmatic purposes in no way diminishes the ideology of others who do not recognise copyright for religious reasons. Whether or not Islam actually has anything to say about copyright, I have no idea, but the fact that non-recognition of copyright may be practical, does not necessarily mean that there are no ideological reasons not to recognise it.
We need a way out, which is why I suggest putting a disclaimer on Linux distributions regarding the possibility of inadvertent proprietary code inclusion, and some time limit that would allow recalcitrant IP holders to find and withdraw their code if they wish to. Failing to notify the code maintainers would then be an implied grant of permission to use the code.
I don't think the courts would be particularly impressed with this suggestion. It is somewhat analagous to the idea that if I distribute a dictionary with a remarkable similarity to the Oxford English Dictionary but with a little disclaimer stating that it is up to the copyright owners to notify me within a set timeframe, then I get an implicit right to distribute their work. Ain't gonna happen. Copyright holders get until the copyright expires to protect their work, which is as it should be. (The question of how long the protection should last is a different matter.)
The simple solution if any packages are found to contain unauthorized copied code is just to remove those packages from distributions until they are fixed. One of the great benefits of the "duplication of effort" that goes into GNU/Linux, and which is often criticized on in this forum, is that there is no shortage of packages if alternatives need to be found quickly.
Assuming that we all know that SCO hasn't got a hope in hell, this whole episode could turn out to be very, very positive for GNU/Linux, despite the short term hassles.
Firstly, for some strange reason, there seems to be a perception that the GPL needs to be tested in court before it is enforceable. I don't know where this perception comes from (it certainly isn't true) but Redhat vs. SCO is probably the best test case we could possibly hope for. No doubt that the GPL will prevail.
Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, the trouncing that SCO gets will be a serious deterrent to other companies thinking that Linux is an easy target for litigation. No company in their right mind would want IBM's lawyers fighting them while IBM know that they are in the right. It gets even worse for litigants when they are attacked by other companies on other fronts - Redhat's GPL challenge, Novell's copyright entitlement challange. Basically, the message being sent out loud and clear is that despite the fact that Linux is seen as a hobbyists OS, there is serious commercial backing ready to defend it. And this backing is stronger because it comes from diverse organizations that do not even have to be consistent with each other in court. I really think that even cash-rich Microsoft would be concerned to be in SCO's position at the moment.
How 'free' will you feel when you're living in fear of not being able to placate some 'rouge state' into not attacking you?
I think you must be living in a time warp. The only 'rouge' states left are Cuba, China and N. Korea. It's nonsense to think of any of them attacking western democracy. If you mean rogue states, I am sorry to say I live in one of them; Blair completely flouted international law when he joined Bush on his crusade in the Persian Gulf.
Slashdot Mirror
Not yet! I really wanted to go last year, but Iceland have resumed whaling :o(
I'll go when they stop.
Seriously, can you imagine the first manned expiditon seeing the Beagle Jacked up, tagged , up on little martian cinderblocks, All that and we already got a head start on building martian cities
What, like this? (from a comment in an earlier article).
I know you are being funny, but I recall one particular instance when I had to give a demonstration to a visiting VIP at very short notice. My machine was the only one that had the necessary software installed, so I grabbed my machine and headed over to the building where the demonstration was to be given. I had never connected this particular machine to that (or any) projector before, so didn't have any appropriate settings in my X configuration file. Trying to get the correct settings by editing the file manually and constantly starting and restarting X just doesn't make a good impression.
Once I got it all set up, the presentation went very well, fortunately.
but what would you do on That Other OS
I wouldn't do anything on That Other OS!
When you are connecting a desktop machine to the projector.
Yes. For instance, when giving presentations, it is not always possible to try out the projector ahead of time.
Good letter, anyway. Unlike some of the earlier comments in this article, I think it was a perfectly professional response. It's quite right to point out to people that your time is valuable.
The author might not read /.
Send him your comment directly if you want him to read it.
No. If there is code in the kernel that shouldn't be there, it will be taken out and replaced in the main distribution. Linus isn't going to allow SCO to charge people to use his kernel.
It is rarely a waste of time to write to your elected representatives. Even if they can do nothing in individual cases, it alerts them to your concerns and gives them a better idea about what issues are important to you.
There are a number of benefits that can come from this. Most obvious, of course, is that if lots of their constituents are telling them similar things, they may be motivated enough to do something about it and fix the law or have a quiet word with someone influential enough to do something about it.
Other less direct benefits can also result, however. If legislation comes up in future which impacts on the issue, they will already be aware of your feelings. If public consultations on related issues are launched, they are likely to tell you ahead of time (easy brownie points for them!) rather than letting you find out from the news when the deadline has closed and the results are announced.
So, if the next government tries to implement legislation to make IP claims immune from counter-suits (or some similarly silly scheme), and if you have already written to your representative to let them know how badly SCO is behaving, they might just pay a little more attention to the text of the bill and be ready to challenge the underlying assumptions.
As always though, it's better to write in your own words rather than just to send off some standard form. They want to know what you think, not what people who you agree with think.
Specialists? If they are specialists, I'd hate to see what damage PR amateurs could do to a company.
It is precisely because of the GNU software that comes with all Linux distributions as standard that I prefer Linux to the "real" Unixes (Solaris, Irix, etc.).
GNU software is really high quality. I now really begrudge every minute I spend working on old Unix machines where programs like sed have arbitrary line length limits. It's the GNU part of Linux that makes it great (sorry Linus). I really know sod all about the kernel, but the GNU/Linux combination works for me.
Why? What incentive is there for an author to do that? If I take some random GPLd software, make some modifications and redistribute it under the terms of the GPL, why would I make any warranties about the code that I originally modified?
SCO are going to be hammered for this whole saga. I don't think there is too much danger of other companies trying for a repeat performance. I suspect SCO would never have started this if they knew where it was going to lead - they probably just thought there was some easy money for the taking - but they've backed themselves into a very nasty corner now.
The FSF have challenged numerous GPL violations. The FSF don't back down (this is RMS's beliefs and values at stake). The GPL has not been tested in court. These three things are enough to give you the answer. In every case, the violaters have backed down! The GPL is an exceptionally elegant piece of work. It hasn't been tested in court because no-one is insane enough to challenge it in court.
I don't know about the US, but Citizen's arrests are certainly enshrined in UK law in the Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) Act, 1984.
The difference here is that the RIAA are not doing this with the assistance of the LAPD of the Feds.
Indeed, the police aren't at all impressed by the sound of it. From the article: "But if an anti-piracy team crossed the line between looking like cops and implying or telling vendors that they are cops, the Los Angeles Police Department would take a pretty dim view, said LAPD spokesman Jason Lee".
In the case of tangible property, you may perhaps be correct - but blackmail to retrieve "intellectual property"? That's got to be illegal. A few thugs walking up to someone and demanding that they hand over physical media (which are most certainly not the property of the RIAA, else there would be no copyright infringement) is extortion. I would expect the courts to be most unhappy with this.
Is that another way of saying that your original argument is indefensible?
If you don't [do something we want], we will have you [experience bad things]. Blackmail. Illegal.
"It is logical deduction that where ever illegal money is to be made its location will be competed over. They will compete better if well organised. Bigger rewards will attract more intelligent, more forceful and more violent gangs. Bootleg music/movies attract very high revenue streams."
Legitimate music/movies also attract very high revenue streams. Your logic would imply that the MPAA and RIAA should also resort to the use of force to protect their markets ... Hey, you could be on to something here!
"I supose bending the words fits in better with your supporting these violent people"
I'm not bending any words. Four unsubstantiated statements of yours implied that all bootleggers are connected to violence. I disagree. Now, speaking of bending words, would you care to point out where I expressed any support for violent people (see you are at it again, assumptions of guilt in connection with violent crime just because they are selling CDs - if they are guilty of violence, prove it (as you say did at the market, very commendable)).
Or perhaps you feel we should just abandon the idea of due process. How about a new justice: Some <ethnic minority|majority of your choice> are violent criminals therefore hired thugs should be able to rough up all <ethnic minority|majority of your choice>.
"These are people that scare intimidate others
"If the violent gang down me street
"... defend the violent gangs' right to break the law
And where exactly is your evidence that all people selling bootleg albums are connected to violent gangs? Since when has large scale copyright infringement automatically been deemed to be a violent act?
I am a vegetarian; I do not believe that it is right to eat animals - my ideology. I had a friend who did not eat meat for medical reasons - purely pragmatic, nothing to do with anybody's ideology. Although the outcome was the same (neither of us eating meat), the fact that he abstained for purely pragmatic reasons did not negate my moral stance. Similarly, the fact that China does not recognize copyright for purely pragmatic purposes in no way diminishes the ideology of others who do not recognise copyright for religious reasons. Whether or not Islam actually has anything to say about copyright, I have no idea, but the fact that non-recognition of copyright may be practical, does not necessarily mean that there are no ideological reasons not to recognise it.
I don't think the courts would be particularly impressed with this suggestion. It is somewhat analagous to the idea that if I distribute a dictionary with a remarkable similarity to the Oxford English Dictionary but with a little disclaimer stating that it is up to the copyright owners to notify me within a set timeframe, then I get an implicit right to distribute their work. Ain't gonna happen. Copyright holders get until the copyright expires to protect their work, which is as it should be. (The question of how long the protection should last is a different matter.)
The simple solution if any packages are found to contain unauthorized copied code is just to remove those packages from distributions until they are fixed. One of the great benefits of the "duplication of effort" that goes into GNU/Linux, and which is often criticized on in this forum, is that there is no shortage of packages if alternatives need to be found quickly.
Firstly, for some strange reason, there seems to be a perception that the GPL needs to be tested in court before it is enforceable. I don't know where this perception comes from (it certainly isn't true) but Redhat vs. SCO is probably the best test case we could possibly hope for. No doubt that the GPL will prevail.
Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, the trouncing that SCO gets will be a serious deterrent to other companies thinking that Linux is an easy target for litigation. No company in their right mind would want IBM's lawyers fighting them while IBM know that they are in the right. It gets even worse for litigants when they are attacked by other companies on other fronts - Redhat's GPL challenge, Novell's copyright entitlement challange. Basically, the message being sent out loud and clear is that despite the fact that Linux is seen as a hobbyists OS, there is serious commercial backing ready to defend it. And this backing is stronger because it comes from diverse organizations that do not even have to be consistent with each other in court. I really think that even cash-rich Microsoft would be concerned to be in SCO's position at the moment.
I think you must be living in a time warp. The only 'rouge' states left are Cuba, China and N. Korea. It's nonsense to think of any of them attacking western democracy. If you mean rogue states, I am sorry to say I live in one of them; Blair completely flouted international law when he joined Bush on his crusade in the Persian Gulf.