Re:For how long?
on
Mastering Light
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The trick is to let it bounce of a shock wave, not a continous wave. You simple let the light escape when it has the right frequency. As long as its gone while the shockwave is still going in one direction it will work.
Why did you earlier state that you did not believe that the SCO code was not under the GPL though?
I never did... Look at my original post:
It doesn't matter whose copyright was on it, even who wrote it... They distributed the code under the gpl allowing everybody to see it and thus they have no legal base at all with respect to trade secrets. In other words: It can't be a secret if you are telling everybody who wants to listen about it.
It does not say that SCO has no rights to the code. It just says that they licensed it to others under the gpl (they might still own part of it and can distribute it under other licenses as they see fit). And thus that if there were any trade secrets in it they are spread to the world themself.
Jeroen
Re:GPL the best bet
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Yes, Any SCO source code in linux kernels distributed by SCO is under the gpl.
As explained earlier if they didn't agree with ALL the terms of the GPL they couldn't have distributed it. And since they did it is no longer a trade secret and everybody can use the intellectual property in it.
I am not arguing that all of SCO's code is under the gpl... SCO is claiming that the linux kernel contains their trade secrets. They distributed this code including the alledged trade secrets themselves. Just redistributing it in good faith is no protection since you have to agree to the GPL in order to be allowed to redistribute it. (Until you agree to the terms of the GPL the source falls under normal copyright and you can't distribute it without written permission blah, blah blah) So they should have read the GPL... and one of the things stated in the gpl is that you give the recipient the right to redistribute it again. If they distributed it in good faith without knowing that any of their trade secrets are in and that all recipients were allowed to use them they obviously didn't read the GPL and weren't allowed to distribute it in the first place.
If you had read my entire post instead of just this one quoted line you would have seen that I was saying exactly the same thing.... namely SCO distributed code they claim is theirs under the gpl. (In your analogy they sold you a tv (stolen or not) and then go calling the cops on you for being in possession of 'their' tv.)
In case of your first point it wouldn't be SCO distributing the code willingly...
As for your second point, yes the GPL is viral, but it is only dangerous if you don't read it before distributing source code under its terms in which case you are simply an idiot. And as a poster above already mentioned it doesn't matter as it is about trade secrets being distributed openly....
Jeroen
Re:GPL the best bet
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It doesn't matter whose copyright was on it, even who wrote it... They distributed the code under the gpl allowing everybody to see it and thus they have no legal base at all with respect to trade secrets. In other words: It can't be a secret if you are telling everybody who wants to listen about it.
Ever heard of dual licensing???? If microsoft got the code from sco under a non-gpl license they would have nothing to do with a gpl version of the same code.
Jeroen
Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec
on
SCO To Show Copied Code
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The problem is that the owner of this ip (most unix patents will probably be outdated anyhow) has been distributing it under the gpl, and thus giving up al rights to enforce their patents. The LZH case was different, the owner of the ip never gave permission to use it in gpl programs, and thus the person who first distributed it under the gpl (not those persons who distributed it further) would be liable.
They are claiming that they own the IBCS modules and shared libraries on linux are theirs....
It is only interesting to people using SCO Unix binaries on linux. I don't know about the library, but the kernel module is part of the kernel and distributed as such among others by SCO itself in their distribution.
Dropping a bomb in a trial is a sure way to shoot yourself in the foot.... The opponent side has a right to prepare a response... They would only make the trial last longer if the wait, and possibly make a bad impression on the judge/jury.
Distributing their own software under the GPL does indeed not affect their ownership of it... But by distributing it under the GPL the buyer gets it under the terms of the GPL license which clearly states that they can copy it further.... So anything that was created by SCO and distributed by them under the GPL is now free.... By the terms of the GPL their patents are worthless (as far as they weren't already to old). The only case they might have is against IBM because of a breach of contract. And even that one is questionable.
What I mean is that most arguments against X are either bullshit or things that the average desktop user (the kind that surfs the web and writes some documents/emails) doesn't care about. In most office environments the transparancy of X would be a huge advangtage if used properly.
Actually ximian has done some really nice things with openoffice to improve interoperability.... Although they mostly focus on gnome it should also interoperate better with kde since with the freedesktop.org stuff things like cut and paste are becoming less of a problem...
XFree86 is fine for desktops, just don't expect it to be a top gaming environment yet.
Jeroen
Re:In related news...
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 1
It is not exactly the same binary object as the key is part of the binary object.
(btw I might suck at spelling, english is not my native language, but atleast I know who I am...)
Jeroen
Re:In related news...
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 1
YET AGAIN: tell me where the GPL says you can't release the source code for your program and change one piece of data-- NOT LOGIC, but DATA-- and release the binaries?
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
The gpl clearly states that you need to offer the CORRESPONDING source code. It talks about source code not logic/data/whateveryoucallit. The data you are talking about is not seperate, it is in a header file. When a program has aline var=3 then the 3 is as much part of the source as the var. When changing any of them the source is different and thus NOT corresponding with the distributed binary. When it is needed to compile the corresponding binary it is part of the source. The only data you could change was external to the program (e.g. config files, seperate data files). If the key is in a header it is part of the source and has to be distributed exactly the same as needed to compile the corresponding binary.
The word corresponding is crucial here, they don't talk about source that might lead to a binary that might do vaguely the same they talk about source code that leads to the same binary.
It is not about me wanting everything for free, sure put DRM in the kernel, but first learn something about programming like the distinction between source and INDEPENDAND data.
Jeroen
Re:In related news...
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 1
The original parent was talking about a header file. That is not just data, it is part of the program. If it were just data it wouldn't be needed in order to compile the program. E.g. using something like libglade for the translation would keep the strings out of the binary, in that case you might have a point. In case of the header file there is no distinction from the rest of the code.
Jeroen
Re:In related news...
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 1
Please point to where the license stipulates that you only have to release source code that vaguely resembles the real source code of a binary....
Secondly the GPL is not about the logic of your program it is about the EXACT source code used to compile your binary. Header files are not something that is included at runtime, they are a part of the source. (You could even say that the logic 'if magic number do bla()' is not the same logic as 'if 0 do bla()' so even in that case the example is flawed)
The same source code with only one piece of data changed is NOT the source code of your binary. How would you define one change? a number? a line? one file? two files? everything?
Jeroen
Re:In related news...
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 1
WRONG
That would be like releasing the source code of your OS that does nothing more then hello world and compile your own binary with a 'slightly' different source tree. Everyboddy could compile his own 'os' it would just have some features disabled....
Header files are as much part of the source as any other file. If you distribute a binary under the GPL you have to distribute the source usable to build that exact binary.
A document is NOT a derivative of the word processor you made it with. It is a result of your input (e.g. keyboard). Likewise a program compiled with a compiler is NOT a derivative of the compiler. (There are some exceptions on this like bison that includes part of itself in the generated file, but they have these exceptions documented in the license)
The idea that government -- or a majority -- knows what's best for an individual better than the individual themselves. This is a very dangerous mode of thinking.
You would rather have everybody making up their own mind? Some people will have very different ideas about 'acceptable' than you might have. This is why the government should draw the line. This should ensure that you get laws that obey common (common as in a democratic majority of SANE people) sense. Unfortunatly most people lack the intelligence to look beyond their own puny opinion which results in a government making overly restrict laws.
If done right the government should be the one drawing lines, but the lines should be drawn liberally to ensure that different opinions among the people can exist.
Setting the cpu clock higher will definitly lead to more power consumption. Most of the power used by a processor is generated by charging/decharching parasitic capacitors. When you double the frequency you will need to charge/decharge them (to the same voltage) twice as often leading to four times as much power consumption (the capacitors don't consume the power and generate heat themself this is done by the wires leading to them).
Unless you managed to shoot three people into orbit with it..... Then you would have to blow up another heater (and three more people) within two weaks:)
Slashdot Mirror
The trick is to let it bounce of a shock wave, not a continous wave. You simple let the light escape when it has the right frequency. As long as its gone while the shockwave is still going in one direction it will work.
Jeroen
No, you need gravity for that....
They are shifting the frequency (the color) of light not its path.
Jeroen
Why did you earlier state that you did not believe that the SCO code was not under the GPL though?
I never did...
Look at my original post:
It doesn't matter whose copyright was on it, even who wrote it...
They distributed the code under the gpl allowing everybody to see it and thus they have no legal base at all with respect to trade secrets.
In other words: It can't be a secret if you are telling everybody who wants to listen about it.
It does not say that SCO has no rights to the code. It just says that they licensed it to others under the gpl (they might still own part of it and can distribute it under other licenses as they see fit). And thus that if there were any trade secrets in it they are spread to the world themself.
Jeroen
Yes, Any SCO source code in linux kernels distributed by SCO is under the gpl.
As explained earlier if they didn't agree with ALL the terms of the GPL they couldn't have distributed it.
And since they did it is no longer a trade secret and everybody can use the intellectual property in it.
Jeroen
I am not arguing that all of SCO's code is under the gpl...
SCO is claiming that the linux kernel contains their trade secrets. They distributed this code including the alledged trade secrets themselves.
Just redistributing it in good faith is no protection since you have to agree to the GPL in order to be allowed to redistribute it. (Until you agree to the terms of the GPL the source falls under normal copyright and you can't distribute it without written permission blah, blah blah)
So they should have read the GPL... and one of the things stated in the gpl is that you give the recipient the right to redistribute it again.
If they distributed it in good faith without knowing that any of their trade secrets are in and that all recipients were allowed to use them they obviously didn't read the GPL and weren't allowed to distribute it in the first place.
Jeroen
If you had read my entire post instead of just this one quoted line you would have seen that I was saying exactly the same thing.... namely SCO distributed code they claim is theirs under the gpl.
(In your analogy they sold you a tv (stolen or not) and then go calling the cops on you for being in possession of 'their' tv.)
Jeroen
In case of your first point it wouldn't be SCO distributing the code willingly...
As for your second point, yes the GPL is viral, but it is only dangerous if you don't read it before distributing source code under its terms in which case you are simply an idiot.
And as a poster above already mentioned it doesn't matter as it is about trade secrets being distributed openly....
Jeroen
It doesn't matter whose copyright was on it, even who wrote it...
They distributed the code under the gpl allowing everybody to see it and thus they have no legal base at all with respect to trade secrets.
In other words: It can't be a secret if you are telling everybody who wants to listen about it.
Jeroen
Ever heard of dual licensing????
If microsoft got the code from sco under a non-gpl license they would have nothing to do with a gpl version of the same code.
Jeroen
The problem is that the owner of this ip (most unix patents will probably be outdated anyhow) has been distributing it under the gpl, and thus giving up al rights to enforce their patents. The LZH case was different, the owner of the ip never gave permission to use it in gpl programs, and thus the person who first distributed it under the gpl (not those persons who distributed it further) would be liable.
Jeroen
They are claiming that they own the IBCS modules and shared libraries on linux are theirs....
It is only interesting to people using SCO Unix binaries on linux. I don't know about the library, but the kernel module is part of the kernel and distributed as such among others by SCO itself in their distribution.
Jeroen
Doesn't matter, the gpl clearly states you can't take things back once distributed....
Jeroen
Dropping a bomb in a trial is a sure way to shoot yourself in the foot.... The opponent side has a right to prepare a response... They would only make the trial last longer if the wait, and possibly make a bad impression on the judge/jury.
Jeroen
Distributing their own software under the GPL does indeed not affect their ownership of it...
But by distributing it under the GPL the buyer gets it under the terms of the GPL license which clearly states that they can copy it further....
So anything that was created by SCO and distributed by them under the GPL is now free....
By the terms of the GPL their patents are worthless (as far as they weren't already to old). The only case they might have is against IBM because of a breach of contract. And even that one is questionable.
Jeroen
What I mean is that most arguments against X are either bullshit or things that the average desktop user (the kind that surfs the web and writes some documents/emails) doesn't care about.
In most office environments the transparancy of X would be a huge advangtage if used properly.
Jeroen
Actually ximian has done some really nice things with openoffice to improve interoperability....
Although they mostly focus on gnome it should also interoperate better with kde since with the freedesktop.org stuff things like cut and paste are becoming less of a problem...
XFree86 is fine for desktops, just don't expect it to be a top gaming environment yet.
Jeroen
It is not exactly the same binary object as the key is part of the binary object.
(btw I might suck at spelling, english is not my native language, but atleast I know who I am...)
Jeroen
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
The gpl clearly states that you need to offer the CORRESPONDING source code. It talks about source code not logic/data/whateveryoucallit.
The data you are talking about is not seperate, it is in a header file.
When a program has aline var=3 then the 3 is as much part of the source as the var. When changing any of them the source is different and thus NOT corresponding with the distributed binary.
When it is needed to compile the corresponding binary it is part of the source.
The only data you could change was external to the program (e.g. config files, seperate data files).
If the key is in a header it is part of the source and has to be distributed exactly the same as needed to compile the corresponding binary.
The word corresponding is crucial here, they don't talk about source that might lead to a binary that might do vaguely the same they talk about source code that leads to the same binary.
It is not about me wanting everything for free, sure put DRM in the kernel, but first learn something about programming like the distinction between source and INDEPENDAND data.
Jeroen
The original parent was talking about a header file. That is not just data, it is part of the program. If it were just data it wouldn't be needed in order to compile the program.
E.g. using something like libglade for the translation would keep the strings out of the binary, in that case you might have a point. In case of the header file there is no distinction from the rest of the code.
Jeroen
Please point to where the license stipulates that you only have to release source code that vaguely resembles the real source code of a binary....
Secondly the GPL is not about the logic of your program it is about the EXACT source code used to compile your binary. Header files are not something that is included at runtime, they are a part of the source.
(You could even say that the logic 'if magic number do bla()' is not the same logic as 'if 0 do bla()' so even in that case the example is flawed)
The same source code with only one piece of data changed is NOT the source code of your binary.
How would you define one change? a number? a line? one file? two files? everything?
Jeroen
WRONG
That would be like releasing the source code of your OS that does nothing more then hello world and compile your own binary with a 'slightly' different source tree.
Everyboddy could compile his own 'os' it would just have some features disabled....
Header files are as much part of the source as any other file. If you distribute a binary under the GPL you have to distribute the source usable to build that exact binary.
Jeroen
A document is NOT a derivative of the word processor you made it with. It is a result of your input (e.g. keyboard). Likewise a program compiled with a compiler is NOT a derivative of the compiler. (There are some exceptions on this like bison that includes part of itself in the generated file, but they have these exceptions documented in the license)
Jeroen
You would rather have everybody making up their own mind? Some people will have very different ideas about 'acceptable' than you might have. This is why the government should draw the line. This should ensure that you get laws that obey common (common as in a democratic majority of SANE people) sense.
Unfortunatly most people lack the intelligence to look beyond their own puny opinion which results in a government making overly restrict laws.
If done right the government should be the one drawing lines, but the lines should be drawn liberally to ensure that different opinions among the people can exist.
Jeroen
Setting the cpu clock higher will definitly lead to more power consumption.
Most of the power used by a processor is generated by charging/decharching parasitic capacitors. When you double the frequency you will need to charge/decharge them (to the same voltage) twice as often leading to four times as much power consumption (the capacitors don't consume the power and generate heat themself this is done by the wires leading to them).
Jeroen
No you can't....
:)
Unless you managed to shoot three people into orbit with it..... Then you would have to blow up another heater (and three more people) within two weaks
Jeroen