He's a self-proclaimed "gun nut," but why does that worry anyone? He's never used a weapon on anyone that I'm aware of, and until he shows a proclivity towards unjustifiable lethal violence, it's difficult to justify any sort of sanction.
Bruce Perens was certainly concerned when he posted this
So if a newspaper prints a story about how someone is a nutcase, it raises their profile? What you are saying makes exactly zero sense.
Some people would argue that this is exactly the case - any publicity makes people think about SCO, what SCO are saying, and engrains it deeper into the subconscious.
There is, of course, a huge flaw in your argument; you seem to come down to "it's selfish" and "we haven't looked hard".
None of us know; we have a sample of Earth, Moon, Venus, and Eros, apparently, and have found life on 25% of those bodies.
At the end of the day, fenix down's point is indisputable; we have a sample of around 4 bodies from a universe the size of which we don't even know.
So all we know is that life does exist in the universe, but for now, it is no more rational to say "life is abundant," than it is to say "we're unique."
Can you truly say that The Moon and Mars are an accurate cross-section of the universe, and that if life doesn't exist there, it doesn't exist anywhere?
In turn, can you truly say that Earth is an accurate cross-section?
This would certainly make a lot of sense; however, the map (same map at SCO with highlights: http://www.sco.com/scosource/unixtree/unixhistory0 1.html) doesn't seem to have any line going to SVR4.2MP other than that from SVR4.2, implying it was all in-house work.
I have a feeling you're right there... SCO have potentially upset the apple-cart more than they intended.
Most of use depend on *nix; Windows have a few servers here and there, but... and think about the possibility... if SCO won this case in, say, 2007, and all UNIX derivatives were invalid, what would we be left with?
MS Windows, which by then would have Palladium. If SCO get their way, even *BSD will be dead; in the worst-case scenario, the US will be depending on European laws making something (Linux, *BSD, whatever) legal to be distributed (hmm, maybe under license?) to the USA
"You barbarians!" he yelled. "I'll sue the council for every penny it's
got! I'll have you hung, drawn and quartered! And whipped! And boiled... until... until... until you've had enough."
"And then I'll do it again!" yelled Arthur. "And when I've finished I will
take all the little bits, and I will jump on them!"
"And I will carry on jumping on them," yelled Arthur, still running,
"until I get blisters, or I can think of anything even more unpleasant to
do, and then..."
The Iraq "war" was the only remaining superpower (and largest oil consumer) going after the largest oil supplier.
Forgeone conclusion; why bother pretending it was about WMD?
This is the David (who I would normally support) fighting Goliath, but with no moral, legal, or other support. SCO seem intent on going down in a blaze of disrepute. I find that pretty interesting... maybe they'll come up with something real, maybe they won't.
Sorry if the real world doesn't happen quickly enough for American attention spans.
Personally, I've been working with UNIX for over a decade, and Linux for half that time, so I am very interested in these new "interpretations" of the contracts involved. If you aren't interested, wait for the 15-second flash on CNN, if that's all you can cope with. It'll be there, hopefully before the "late GWBush (Jnr) indicted as a war criminal" report.
If some playground dweeb starts telling the biggest guy in school, "You stole my calculator," do you really expect the big guy to bother getting a stick? Just let him wear himself out trying to hit you.
SCO could have had a chance, but they seem intent on pouring all their cash (and cachet) into a huge drainpipe labelled:
infidel=IBM; while (money_in_bank>0) { sue (infidel) infidel=infidel->next; }
They just don't realise that it won't survive the first iteration.
IBM will wait for SCO to finish dancing around, go to court, deal with that, and *then* say, "So, you want our income since 13th June? I think you'll find that you've been pushed into the ground by this court case, we'll have any spare nickels from your pockets."
The article mentions jokes; looking at RedHat's latest 2.4 kernel (2.4.20-13.8, but really more like 2.4.21, I believe), there are no "jokes" as such in sched.c; the best I can find are these two:
Line 662
/*
* there are 3 processes which are affected by a context switch:
*
* prev ==.... ==> (last => next)
*
* It's the 'much more previous' 'prev' that is on next's stack,
* but prev is set to (the just run) 'last' process by switch_to().
* This might sound slightly confusing but makes tons of sense.
*/
And line 1304:
/* Become as one with the init task */
Now maybe I'm being picky, but these aren't side-splitting jokes as far as I'm concerned... these are, however, the closest I can find.
Unix is alive and kicking the pants off Linux and Windows, you may or may not have noticed, depending on how many datacentres you have visited this year.
1) Read up on the word "or"
2) GPL code is indeed copyrighted (note the spelling), but there is nothing in the GPL which requires that otherwise violating (ie, not distributing the source) binaries must acknowldge the copyright - indeed, even GPL compliant binaries are not required to acknowledge their source, even if they are accompanied with the source, or an offer of the source.
Any further comments only from people who have actually read the GPL, please.
The article says nothing (and everything) you are both claiming - it just says that the (anonymous, therefore worthless anyway) source saw 1:1 links between SCO and Linux source, when working on the LKP layer. The source didn't appear to have any background with SCO or Linux, and certainly doesn't make any claims that either party had that source first.
IF (and it's a big if) other UNIX licensees (HP, Sun, or even IBM!) can find the same, then it's basically a coincidence, or BSD code (look at the history). If it's code which SCO have "written" more recently, then it's down to the changelogs... which all boils down to: this changes nothing.
MOVE ALONG. NOTHING TO SEE HERE.
Slashdot just desperate for news. Until a court gets the source, changelogs, and verified dates and submitters, we know nothing.
Some useless comments from an anonymous source mean less than nothing.
Linus won't touch it, for the terms of the NDA. I'd be surprised if other Linux developers would, anyway (and remember, it's not just kernel they're alleging, it's "some other stuff" too) - having signed that NDA, the developer would basically be unable to continue his/her own development work anyway; let's hope the American courts can sort it that all allegedly infringing code is made open so it can be fixed that way
That could violate the conditions of the GNU GPL, which states that any amendments to open-source code used in a commercial product must be given back to the community or a copyright notice must be displayed attributable to Linux, he said.
Err... hello? If you distribute it (SCO did) it must be given back; I can't find anything in the GPL which mentions a copyright notice as an alternative.
Slashdot Mirror
Bruce Perens was certainly concerned when he posted this
ESR is as stable as blamanche.
Some people would argue that this is exactly the case - any publicity makes people think about SCO, what SCO are saying, and engrains it deeper into the subconscious.
http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/1998/08/27/p 61s1.htm
http://www.memefirst.com/article.php?story=20030 309192954666
Surely "to who are you going to speak it?"
Stops short of - that means goes all the way up to, but not go as far as.
How did that get +5 Informative? Does nobody here speak English?
The driver is part of the kernel. Static linking, anybody? RTFlicense
Discreditable information: X-box X-ploit
Sounds like a good match to me. Blackmail it is, then.
None of us know; we have a sample of Earth, Moon, Venus, and Eros, apparently, and have found life on 25% of those bodies.
At the end of the day, fenix down's point is indisputable; we have a sample of around 4 bodies from a universe the size of which we don't even know.
So all we know is that life does exist in the universe, but for now, it is no more rational to say "life is abundant," than it is to say "we're unique."
Can you truly say that The Moon and Mars are an accurate cross-section of the universe, and that if life doesn't exist there, it doesn't exist anywhere?
In turn, can you truly say that Earth is an accurate cross-section?
- Steal the music
- Be converted by it
- Never steal again
I'd have thought he'd be happy with that!It's a big gif; where are Sequent on it?
Cheers,
Steve.
How exciting were you???
Most of use depend on *nix; Windows have a few servers here and there, but ... and think about the possibility ... if SCO won this case in, say, 2007, and all UNIX derivatives were invalid, what would we be left with?
MS Windows, which by then would have Palladium. If SCO get their way, even *BSD will be dead; in the worst-case scenario, the US will be depending on European laws making something (Linux, *BSD, whatever) legal to be distributed (hmm, maybe under license?) to the USA
Anybody?
Please?
Hello?
Is there anybody there.....?
Oh.
It's there, and if your data means anything, you'll use it.
If not, use ext2fs, or *fat...
"And then I'll do it again!" yelled Arthur. "And when I've finished I will take all the little bits, and I will jump on them!"
"And I will carry on jumping on them," yelled Arthur, still running, "until I get blisters, or I can think of anything even more unpleasant to do, and then ..."
Forgeone conclusion; why bother pretending it was about WMD?
This is the David (who I would normally support) fighting Goliath, but with no moral, legal, or other support. SCO seem intent on going down in a blaze of disrepute. I find that pretty interesting... maybe they'll come up with something real, maybe they won't.
Sorry if the real world doesn't happen quickly enough for American attention spans.
Personally, I've been working with UNIX for over a decade, and Linux for half that time, so I am very interested in these new "interpretations" of the contracts involved. If you aren't interested, wait for the 15-second flash on CNN, if that's all you can cope with. It'll be there, hopefully before the "late GWBush (Jnr) indicted as a war criminal" report.
If some playground dweeb starts telling the biggest guy in school, "You stole my calculator," do you really expect the big guy to bother getting a stick? Just let him wear himself out trying to hit you.
SCO could have had a chance, but they seem intent on pouring all their cash (and cachet) into a huge drainpipe labelled:
They just don't realise that it won't survive the first iteration.IBM will wait for SCO to finish dancing around, go to court, deal with that, and *then* say, "So, you want our income since 13th June? I think you'll find that you've been pushed into the ground by this court case, we'll have any spare nickels from your pockets."
Line 662
And line 1304:Now maybe I'm being picky, but these aren't side-splitting jokes as far as I'm concerned... these are, however, the closest I can find.
Unix is alive and kicking the pants off Linux and Windows, you may or may not have noticed, depending on how many datacentres you have visited this year.
Any further comments only from people who have actually read the GPL, please.
IF (and it's a big if) other UNIX licensees (HP, Sun, or even IBM!) can find the same, then it's basically a coincidence, or BSD code (look at the history). If it's code which SCO have "written" more recently, then it's down to the changelogs... which all boils down to: this changes nothing.
MOVE ALONG. NOTHING TO SEE HERE.
Slashdot just desperate for news. Until a court gets the source, changelogs, and verified dates and submitters, we know nothing.
Some useless comments from an anonymous source mean less than nothing.
He's a bright idiot.
Linus won't touch it, for the terms of the NDA. I'd be surprised if other Linux developers would, anyway (and remember, it's not just kernel they're alleging, it's "some other stuff" too) - having signed that NDA, the developer would basically be unable to continue his/her own development work anyway; let's hope the American courts can sort it that all allegedly infringing code is made open so it can be fixed that way
Err... hello? If you distribute it (SCO did) it must be given back; I can't find anything in the GPL which mentions a copyright notice as an alternative.