Well, I have mixed feelings about the whole GNU/Linux thing, though I do find myself defending RMS a lot (mainly when people get him backwards, which is not hard to do).
However, I think the important thing to remember here is that RMS (afaik) has never contributed to Linux, but rather to GNU, which was supposed eventually to become a system to replace UNIX. GNU became the userland for LInux (though now there are LInux-specific bits and bsd bits) which is where this GNU/Linux business is from, but whatever it is called, it does not detract form the fact GNU was RMS' baby and that is what he has worked on, not Linux.
The insurance companies make deals with the worse and cheapest body repair shops that they can find, and you can't take your car to the mechanic that you trust because he is "not affiliated". Bastards! I speak from experience because I have a few accidents (not my fault) and have to deal with the bastards. Did I mention that they are bastards?
This is what you get for believing the insurance company. They cannot legally bar you from using any repair shop you choose. Of course they will try to get away with anything, especially if you do not involve a lawyer. That is the worst thing about the US, you have to defend your rights with money guns and lawyers or you get none at all. The government does not protect you here even though they pass the laws.
Insurance companies are some of the worst criminal organizations in the US. I noticed the one person who came to their defense was a Canadian and therefore of suspect sanity;). But seriously, maybe things are different there.
It goes far beyond the problem where they make money with premiums then fail to pay because they don't feel like it. They routinely weasel out of paying, which in turn raises the cost of getting $SERVICE for which they are supposed to pay (hospitals, body shops, etc) besides the routine practice of charging more up front because $SHOP knows the insurance agency will require them to negotiate down from whatever price they charge, so if they charged a reasonable rate up front they would get screwed. People who pay directly usually pay this higher rate. YMMV.
Car insurance is even nastier, because often even though you pay for $KICK-ASSINSURANCECO the guy who hits you may have $SLEASEBAGSINC which charges $100/month and runs to Canada if they have to pay a claim. This is why I generally get uninsured motorist insurance. But so far I have been lucky and not had to fight the hellish battle of getting my car fixed after an accident.
Don't even get me started on the insurance companies that now get to be banks, and invest their (well actually it is *YOUR*) money questionably, possibly losing the lot.
I think if there were some kind of oversight agency for insurance, and the attorney general prosecuted insurance companies for fraud if they dared not pay their claims, it would be better, but then the insurance companies would whine that it is not profitable. You will notice the US government, in support of capitalism, will support any weasels who pay them money (even telemarketers and spammers). It would be neat if there were some kind of escrow fund where everyone pays $FACTOR * 1/100 of the cost of the house/boat/whatever (depending on some statistical analysis of the likelihood of claiming, etc) and that fund was used to actually pay out when it was needed, but that is not what is happening.
The problem is that people like the customer the poster was talking about would be even more angered by the idea the name comes from Greek mythology or speaks of a "guardian spirit." Pretty much any spirit is a demon to them, and anything Greek, Roman, or secular is evil. Likewise the "cute cartoon devil" is an image they hate very much, as they feel it is a way for Satan to hide and sneak into your life.
You cannot reason with unreason. They will not allow any justification for such things, because they will see it as rationalizing evil. You and I may disagree with them, but this is the world they choose to live in, and they forcibly resist any suggestion to change (as they have been taught from birth to do).
As for the assertion they do not deserve a computer, well, this person was the poster's customer, so s/he could always have denied them business, but it is a two way street. It is too bad that Jesux appears to be a hoax. I think it would be interesting if someone did something like that. A Christian Open Source Operating system would go over well with those people who seek a "purer" life free of outside influences (and some would say "free from thought";) ). Come to think of it, I wonder what the requirements would be for a kosher OS?:)
I believe that's what Stallman would like to call GNU/Linux!
Actually, Richard Stallman has always called his project Gnu, and it predates linux by quite a bit. (1983 vs 1991) However, the Gnu project did not include a kernel (though I understand HURD is around) so if you choose to use the LInux Kernel and the Gnu tools, you have... Gnu/Linux. If you use the HURD kernel and the Gnu tools, you have Gnu/HURD.
That said, a Linux distribution with no Gnu tools would be pretty useless. Come to think of it, any OS without Gnu tools is pretty useless compared to one that has them installed.
They organize a yearly Linux exhibition, called "LinuxTag" (which means "Linux day"), which according to them is Europe's biggest Linux exhibition. They're not direct competitors to SCO, however if SCO causes less people to visit the trade show or causes exhibitors to shy away from actually displaying Linux products, that will harm LinuxTag e.V., so that's why they can take legal action.
Actually, if they do this, they are direct competitors to SCO, because they are distributing Linux. Likewise since SCO threatened Linux distributors and users (in that order) with possible future legal action, they threatened LinuxTag.
For that matter, they threatened me. Everyone who has ever given away a Linux CD is by definition a distributor of Linux. Those rights to distribution are granted by the GPL, so if code was improperly GPL'ed, everyone is implicated.
Of course the reality is even if code is really foudn that is SCO's code, Linus or someone will whip up a patch and toss it out for all to consume, and by doing so we will be free.
The only situation in which something else would happen is one in which SCO says the very act of doing something violates their IP (like what happened with DeCSS, where it is illegal to write libre software to read a DVD, period).
People pay money to Gartner for this kind of crap?
Yes, some people do. Something needs to be done about these supposedly independant research firms who are really paid for by big players in the very industries they are supposed to be studying. But until some serious legislation is passed in this area, people will continue to buy results.
I essentially agree with most of these points. I do, however, see how SCO could easily have ended up doing what they have done, even with the most careful diligence. That said, I will answer your points.
SCO claims (although they have not publically released this information) to have detailed, specific information about the code that was inserted. They would have to - this isn't something that you find out AFTER you file a billion dollar lawsuit. You do your own discovery first.
It is true they claim to have detailed information. I do not know that they have complete information about all infringing code. If fact it is very possible they do not. The way I see it, someone at SCO noticed something in a version of Linux being distributed by IBM that seemed familiar, notified someone else, and eventually legal became involved. When they had confirmed to their satisfaction that these things were true they went forward with their lawsuit. Either that or they are completely full of crap, which is probably the case anyhow.
Regardless, in the hypothetical case that SCO's claims are true, they had not at that point confirmed anything with respect to their own distribution. To this day they have waffled over whether the kernel.org kernel has anything to be concerned about, or other distributions. There have been some dire warnings and vague statements, but nothing specific.
It is clear they now believe there is such code in their distribution. They have since ceased distributing it.
As I posted before - theoretically, both SCO upper management and SCO lawyers are aware of the implications of the GPL. If they aren't, then they're grossly negligent. In that case, they should be very aware of the fact that continuing distribution after they are aware of the existence of the offending code has at least the potential for signifigant legal problems - if every Joe Schmoe on Slashdot can see it, they certainly can. In this case, going public with thier accusations before cleaning house internally is again grossly negligent.
I believe that SCO understands the GPL. I think their spirit is not in keeping with the Gnu or even the Linux way, and that has been true of Caldera and SCO throughout history (with the exception of the Kill Bill mentality that used to be there and has since vanished).
I think you are probably right about cleaning house. I believe they had not gone through whatever internal process would have been necessary to verify their distribution was tainted before making these public statements. I do not envy the managers in charge of such a project or their employees, because it is an arduous task and at the same time they have to keep everything they do completely confidential while employees would probably be bursting to leak the information and straining to post on slashdot or something. Already a former SCO employee has weighed in on the debate.
I would agree with almost everything you've said _if_ SCO hadn't been so free with both thier accusations and thier lawsuits - you shouldn't do that until AFTER you've cleaned house internally. The parts I wouldn't agree with - that SCO wouldn't know if the offending code is in thier distro after they discovered it. Removing the code you're already aware of is the least of the obvious things to do before filing your lawsuit. Here's something even more important - assuming every single one of SCOs allegations is true, they have no legal right to distribute Linux at all. That's a very obvious consequence of the GPL, and continuing to illegally distribute your product, even a major one, after making very public and very offensive comments is a pretty major blunder.
I agree wholeheartedly that they cannot distribute Linux if they believe the Linux they are distributing contains tainted code. I am sure the whole process of stopping distribution was in itself a major undertaking. Ask yourself how quickly your company could pull the plug o
Re:considered the father of Linux?
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
The following would happen. I quote directly from the GPL:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances.
It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented by public license practices. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice.
This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License.
So, essentially the parts of Linux containing offending code would have to be purged of that code unless the copyright holder gave carte blanche to the Linux community to distribute the code. Linux could not be distributed with the offending code.
All this speculation is silly anyway. This scenario has already happened to BSD under similar circumstances. There was much brouhaha, but eventually 4 files got changed and all was well. No one got hurt, no one went to jail and the principals are still in business. Why, especially with such direct legal precedent, is there so much fear it will go any other way?
too bad they crippled the damn thing
on
Shocking Clothing
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
To prevent accidental discharges, the wearer must arm the jacket before it can deliver a shock. A lock on the sleeve must first be opened with a key, and then the charge is built up by holding down a button inside one of the sleeves.
It reminds me of the research into "smart guns" that decide whether they want to fire or not, and "smart bullets" that are designed to cause less damage.
What is the point of giving a woman a weapon with the claim she can use it in unexpected situations without being disarmed and then put on so many safeties it becomes useless? If the attacker can take a gun out of her hand, he certainly can grab the key from her, or stop her pressing the button that causes the shock... criminey!
IANAP(riest) and for that matter IANAC(atholic), but the vatican's official website, here might be a good place to start. With respect to the Church's official positions, they should essentially be there. Or you could always ask a priest, but do you really want to ask the trolls of slashdot this question?
PS: To the guy that was griping that not everybody is Christian, I'm not Christian. It doesn't seem like trying to pretend away one of, if not the, major influences on Western society is very productive to me.
GPL code in any component of Windows would contaminate it and could arguably cause it to become a GPL work. Any relevant low-level code monkey could pull such a stunt.
That is an interesting scenario, but I think at worst Microsoft could get away with GPL'ing the relevant library or executable. They would not have to GPL the whole OS. If that executable happened to be ntoskrnl.exe it would be kind of funny, but also kind of useless to most people, since whereas in execution Windows is pretty inseperable, in terms of individual libraries and executables it is pretty modular.
It's a good thing you aren't a hiring manager, because you'd get someone sued. You think that the entire fucking sales force of SCO, which was aggressively marketing and selling Linux was operating "without authorization"?
Who is more likely to get the company sued? The guy who thinks he can rip random code from other companies and distribute it for free, then get away with it, or the guy who says "I don't think we should hire that guy, he sounds like trouble to me..."
The sales force of SCO did not put SCO-owned code into the Linux kernel. Of course they weren't acting without authorization. But they are also not in charge of releasing code, rather they are the sales staff. The IP lawyers, upper management, and product managers would be the pertenant entities here.
It is important to remember three points here:
1) SCO is alleging the infringing code was not submitted by their employees.
2) Very few people have been told what the code even is, or know specifically what the infringement entails.
3) It is unknown, even to most of SCO, potentially to all of SCO, what products exactly contain allegedly infringing code. I imagine there are some people pulling serious overtime right now puzzling that out.
If you're acting within the authority of your position, on behalf of your company, then yes, your company is liable for your actions. If you're a web admin, with write access to production webservers, and you replace your companies home page with, say, kiddie porn, you're damn right your company is going to get sued - especially if they didn't take IMMEDIATE action to remove you from your position and take the offending website offline.
The company may get sued, but accusation is not the same thing as guilt. Important legal questions would include what policies the company had in place at the time to govern these sorts of things, and what orders form management were. If management ordered employees to distribute kiddie pr0n, that is one thing. But the case in which an employee directly disobeys orders from management without them having any way of knowing (like what may have happened in the SCO case) it is a different story altogether.
Besides, we are talking about an employee of a completely different company. This is more a case in which an employee from IBM would have hacked the SCO web server and placed kiddie pr0n in a folder full of normal images. You're telling me that IBMer would suddenly represent SCO? SCO would be liable? Give me a break!
You don't magically not represent your company anymore if you do something wrong - like not ensure that the code you know to be your trade secret (because you're filing a BILLION dollar lawsuit against one of the largest companies in the world) is removed from your anonymous FTP server, and that you continue distributing it under a license you know to be fundamentally opposed to the sort of controls you're trying to exert of this IP (because you're not a total fucking moron and had your lawyers read and explain the GPL). Yes, you're acting in your capacity as a company officer and within your authority as a representative of the company, and therefore you're actiing as a copyright holder.
I think there are several important points which should be considered in this case. First off, SCO did not necessarily *know* their linux distributions contained their IP, even after they sued IBM. And to be sure, they would have had to check the code. That takes a lot of time, and there are corporate processes to follow and procedures, meetings to convene, etc etc. Secondly, there are serious legal and business implications if, for instance, SCO did not fulfill orders for which people had paid money, did not support customers who had paid for support, etc etc.
So in my view, 3 months is pretty fast for a corporation to completely stop distributing their major product. Besides, the whole point of thi
How is someone outside the company supposed to know whether or not the employee is authorised and therefore representing the comany? IANAL but I am sure that if an employee acts as though they are representing the company then others are entitled to assume that the employee is acting for the company and the company is still bound by the actions of that employee.
In a case like this, it would be a point of law decided in court. The company could always provide an affirmative defense by showing their internal processes and showing that the actions of the employee are not their normal business practice and were not condoned/sanctioned/ordered by management. In a case where an IBM employee released IP without authorization from management they could point to policies specifically prohibiting this.
So if an employee does something good, they are representing the company, but if they do something bad, they're not?
No. If an employee acts in their normal capacity, doing their job as directed by management, they are acting as a representative of the company.
If an employee acts in direct contravention of management orders, which is precisely what would have happened in a case in which someone placed NDA code in the Linux kernel, they do not represent the company. They are acting on their own, making their own decisions, and responsible for their actions. Or at least that is how it works in the US, and how it should work under any reasonable model. Companies historically are held accountable for their corporate actions, eg those taken in accordance with their normal procedures and business practices.
Oddly, when I was looking for the British pound symbol I originally mistook the Italian Lire symbol for the British Pound. Too bad I can't get someone to give me 1000 pounds for 1000 lire;).
That's essentially the gist of it. #==pound is a USism. The aforementioned long definition explains exactly the problem you describe: US keyboards do not have the £ symbol, so people with typewriters often used # since it was used as a shorthand for the Imperial ("English") Pound. (The story of how the US came to use units which it called English units when the English did not use these units is another tale...)
Find your grade school teachers and shoot them. He says it's the most beautiful, but probably not the most practical. Or, even though it's not the most practical, it's the most beautiful. Etc...
Is English a second language for you? Perhaps it is a US idiom, but the construct "if not the most" is pretty commonly used to mean that the object is *possibly* a superlative, but if it is not, it is pretty close, eg (with thanks to google):
That last link goes into the subject at some length. I could go on, but I think you get the picture.
To be fair, the poster's original comment is unclear because they do not include the "one of the..." construct in their sentence. So it is possible they said what you think they said, only badly, or what others thought they said. Perhaps the original poster should clarify his/her statement.
In civil case, burglar sues black belt (probably for medical bills, etc.) because black belt used excessive force when trying to stop his crime. Now, in civil trial, the prior bad act is kept out under federal rules of evidence 404b1 because a conviction cannot be used to prove character and it's irrelevant to the matter at hand under rule 403a because the matter is not whether the burglar was committing the crime but whether excessive force was used. And since black belt=excessive force he has to pay the burglar's medical bills. While the burglar is in jail enjoying complimentary ass-rapings. It all evens out.
I am sure this is right (legally) but of course not right morally and defies all logic. How can a jury reasonably determine excessive force without them knowing what action was being prevented? And why can't crimes of which a person has been convicted be used to determine character when for instance unfounded rumours about a woman's sexual history are admissable in rape trials?
As for the burglar enjoying ass-rapings, that may not be the case. Firstly he gets a lighter sentence in any case by plea-bargaining. In today's society, it is likely he won't go to jail at all. The best way to go to jail for a long time in this country is to write a program that plays dvd's, be found in possession of a proscribed substance, or say naughty things about the government on your website. Killing, maiming, robbing and raping don't get you put in jail unless you have a bad lawyer or are otherwise unlucky:P.
Well, ok that is hyperbole. But it is proven that in some of those cases the average number of years served in prison for the nonviolent offenses far outstrips those of the violent offences.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I have mixed feelings about the whole GNU/Linux thing, though I do find myself defending RMS a lot (mainly when people get him backwards, which is not hard to do).
However, I think the important thing to remember here is that RMS (afaik) has never contributed to Linux, but rather to GNU, which was supposed eventually to become a system to replace UNIX. GNU became the userland for LInux (though now there are LInux-specific bits and bsd bits) which is where this GNU/Linux business is from, but whatever it is called, it does not detract form the fact GNU was RMS' baby and that is what he has worked on, not Linux.
The insurance companies make deals with the worse and cheapest body repair shops that they can find, and you can't take your car to the mechanic that you trust because he is "not affiliated". Bastards! I speak from experience because I have a few accidents (not my fault) and have to deal with the bastards. Did I mention that they are bastards?
This is what you get for believing the insurance company. They cannot legally bar you from using any repair shop you choose. Of course they will try to get away with anything, especially if you do not involve a lawyer. That is the worst thing about the US, you have to defend your rights with money guns and lawyers or you get none at all. The government does not protect you here even though they pass the laws.
Insurance companies are some of the worst criminal organizations in the US. I noticed the one person who came to their defense was a Canadian and therefore of suspect sanity ;). But seriously, maybe things are different there.
It goes far beyond the problem where they make money with premiums then fail to pay because they don't feel like it. They routinely weasel out of paying, which in turn raises the cost of getting $SERVICE for which they are supposed to pay (hospitals, body shops, etc) besides the routine practice of charging more up front because $SHOP knows the insurance agency will require them to negotiate down from whatever price they charge, so if they charged a reasonable rate up front they would get screwed. People who pay directly usually pay this higher rate. YMMV.
Car insurance is even nastier, because often even though you pay for $KICK-ASSINSURANCECO the guy who hits you may have $SLEASEBAGSINC which charges $100/month and runs to Canada if they have to pay a claim. This is why I generally get uninsured motorist insurance. But so far I have been lucky and not had to fight the hellish battle of getting my car fixed after an accident.
Don't even get me started on the insurance companies that now get to be banks, and invest their (well actually it is *YOUR*) money questionably, possibly losing the lot.
I think if there were some kind of oversight agency for insurance, and the attorney general prosecuted insurance companies for fraud if they dared not pay their claims, it would be better, but then the insurance companies would whine that it is not profitable. You will notice the US government, in support of capitalism, will support any weasels who pay them money (even telemarketers and spammers). It would be neat if there were some kind of escrow fund where everyone pays $FACTOR * 1/100 of the cost of the house/boat/whatever (depending on some statistical analysis of the likelihood of claiming, etc) and that fund was used to actually pay out when it was needed, but that is not what is happening.
Not a chance, but wish he would. Delay 2.6 and file suit against SCO for damages. It would dwarf the net worth of SCO.
Delay 2.6 until the suit is over? Do you really think the suit will take 5 years to finish? (ie longer than it will take to finish 2.6 ;) )
The problem is that people like the customer the poster was talking about would be even more angered by the idea the name comes from Greek mythology or speaks of a "guardian spirit." Pretty much any spirit is a demon to them, and anything Greek, Roman, or secular is evil. Likewise the "cute cartoon devil" is an image they hate very much, as they feel it is a way for Satan to hide and sneak into your life.
You cannot reason with unreason. They will not allow any justification for such things, because they will see it as rationalizing evil. You and I may disagree with them, but this is the world they choose to live in, and they forcibly resist any suggestion to change (as they have been taught from birth to do).
As for the assertion they do not deserve a computer, well, this person was the poster's customer, so s/he could always have denied them business, but it is a two way street. It is too bad that Jesux appears to be a hoax. I think it would be interesting if someone did something like that. A Christian Open Source Operating system would go over well with those people who seek a "purer" life free of outside influences (and some would say "free from thought" ;) ). Come to think of it, I wonder what the requirements would be for a kosher OS? :)
I believe that's what Stallman would like to call GNU/Linux!
Actually, Richard Stallman has always called his project Gnu, and it predates linux by quite a bit. (1983 vs 1991) However, the Gnu project did not include a kernel (though I understand HURD is around) so if you choose to use the LInux Kernel and the Gnu tools, you have... Gnu/Linux. If you use the HURD kernel and the Gnu tools, you have Gnu/HURD.
That said, a Linux distribution with no Gnu tools would be pretty useless. Come to think of it, any OS without Gnu tools is pretty useless compared to one that has them installed.
They organize a yearly Linux exhibition, called "LinuxTag" (which means "Linux day"), which according to them is Europe's biggest Linux exhibition. They're not direct competitors to SCO, however if SCO causes less people to visit the trade show or causes exhibitors to shy away from actually displaying Linux products, that will harm LinuxTag e.V., so that's why they can take legal action.
Actually, if they do this, they are direct competitors to SCO, because they are distributing Linux. Likewise since SCO threatened Linux distributors and users (in that order) with possible future legal action, they threatened LinuxTag.
For that matter, they threatened me. Everyone who has ever given away a Linux CD is by definition a distributor of Linux. Those rights to distribution are granted by the GPL, so if code was improperly GPL'ed, everyone is implicated.
Of course the reality is even if code is really foudn that is SCO's code, Linus or someone will whip up a patch and toss it out for all to consume, and by doing so we will be free.
The only situation in which something else would happen is one in which SCO says the very act of doing something violates their IP (like what happened with DeCSS, where it is illegal to write libre software to read a DVD, period).
But atheism is also a religion, and therefore covered. ;)
oops, my mistake. That would be 30mm Depleted Uranium rounds. Which wouldn't leave much left afterwards.
And here I thought your use of DE rounds on German attorneys was simply an appropriate measure! ;)
People pay money to Gartner for this kind of crap?
Yes, some people do. Something needs to be done about these supposedly independant research firms who are really paid for by big players in the very industries they are supposed to be studying. But until some serious legislation is passed in this area, people will continue to buy results.
I essentially agree with most of these points. I do, however, see how SCO could easily have ended up doing what they have done, even with the most careful diligence. That said, I will answer your points.
SCO claims (although they have not publically released this information) to have detailed, specific information about the code that was inserted. They would have to - this isn't something that you find out AFTER you file a billion dollar lawsuit. You do your own discovery first.
It is true they claim to have detailed information. I do not know that they have complete information about all infringing code. If fact it is very possible they do not. The way I see it, someone at SCO noticed something in a version of Linux being distributed by IBM that seemed familiar, notified someone else, and eventually legal became involved. When they had confirmed to their satisfaction that these things were true they went forward with their lawsuit. Either that or they are completely full of crap, which is probably the case anyhow.
Regardless, in the hypothetical case that SCO's claims are true, they had not at that point confirmed anything with respect to their own distribution. To this day they have waffled over whether the kernel.org kernel has anything to be concerned about, or other distributions. There have been some dire warnings and vague statements, but nothing specific.
It is clear they now believe there is such code in their distribution. They have since ceased distributing it.
As I posted before - theoretically, both SCO upper management and SCO lawyers are aware of the implications of the GPL. If they aren't, then they're grossly negligent. In that case, they should be very aware of the fact that continuing distribution after they are aware of the existence of the offending code has at least the potential for signifigant legal problems - if every Joe Schmoe on Slashdot can see it, they certainly can. In this case, going public with thier accusations before cleaning house internally is again grossly negligent.
I believe that SCO understands the GPL. I think their spirit is not in keeping with the Gnu or even the Linux way, and that has been true of Caldera and SCO throughout history (with the exception of the Kill Bill mentality that used to be there and has since vanished).
I think you are probably right about cleaning house. I believe they had not gone through whatever internal process would have been necessary to verify their distribution was tainted before making these public statements. I do not envy the managers in charge of such a project or their employees, because it is an arduous task and at the same time they have to keep everything they do completely confidential while employees would probably be bursting to leak the information and straining to post on slashdot or something. Already a former SCO employee has weighed in on the debate.
I would agree with almost everything you've said _if_ SCO hadn't been so free with both thier accusations and thier lawsuits - you shouldn't do that until AFTER you've cleaned house internally.
The parts I wouldn't agree with - that SCO wouldn't know if the offending code is in thier distro after they discovered it. Removing the code you're already aware of is the least of the obvious things to do before filing your lawsuit.
Here's something even more important - assuming every single one of SCOs allegations is true, they have no legal right to distribute Linux at all. That's a very obvious consequence of the GPL, and continuing to illegally distribute your product, even a major one, after making very public and very offensive comments is a pretty major blunder.
I agree wholeheartedly that they cannot distribute Linux if they believe the Linux they are distributing contains tainted code. I am sure the whole process of stopping distribution was in itself a major undertaking. Ask yourself how quickly your company could pull the plug o
The following would happen. I quote directly from the GPL:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances.
It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented by public license practices. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice.
This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License.
So, essentially the parts of Linux containing offending code would have to be purged of that code unless the copyright holder gave carte blanche to the Linux community to distribute the code. Linux could not be distributed with the offending code.
All this speculation is silly anyway. This scenario has already happened to BSD under similar circumstances. There was much brouhaha, but eventually 4 files got changed and all was well. No one got hurt, no one went to jail and the principals are still in business. Why, especially with such direct legal precedent, is there so much fear it will go any other way?
To prevent accidental discharges, the wearer must arm the jacket before it can deliver a shock. A lock on the sleeve must first be opened with a key, and then the charge is built up by holding down a button inside one of the sleeves.
It reminds me of the research into "smart guns" that decide whether they want to fire or not, and "smart bullets" that are designed to cause less damage.
What is the point of giving a woman a weapon with the claim she can use it in unexpected situations without being disarmed and then put on so many safeties it becomes useless? If the attacker can take a gun out of her hand, he certainly can grab the key from her, or stop her pressing the button that causes the shock... criminey!
Unless they are having sex with them.... ;)
IANAP(riest) and for that matter IANAC(atholic), but the vatican's official website, here might be a good place to start. With respect to the Church's official positions, they should essentially be there. Or you could always ask a priest, but do you really want to ask the trolls of slashdot this question?
PS: To the guy that was griping that not everybody is Christian, I'm not Christian. It doesn't seem like trying to pretend away one of, if not the, major influences on Western society is very productive to me.
Crap! there it is again!
Only because Norwegians know English even if Americans do not.
It makes sense. But essentially it is clear that the post was not. ;)
GPL code in any component of Windows would contaminate it and could arguably cause it to become a GPL work. Any relevant low-level code monkey could pull such a stunt.
That is an interesting scenario, but I think at worst Microsoft could get away with GPL'ing the relevant library or executable. They would not have to GPL the whole OS. If that executable happened to be ntoskrnl.exe it would be kind of funny, but also kind of useless to most people, since whereas in execution Windows is pretty inseperable, in terms of individual libraries and executables it is pretty modular.
It's a good thing you aren't a hiring manager, because you'd get someone sued. You think that the entire fucking sales force of SCO, which was aggressively marketing and selling Linux was operating "without authorization"?
Who is more likely to get the company sued? The guy who thinks he can rip random code from other companies and distribute it for free, then get away with it, or the guy who says "I don't think we should hire that guy, he sounds like trouble to me..."
The sales force of SCO did not put SCO-owned code into the Linux kernel. Of course they weren't acting without authorization. But they are also not in charge of releasing code, rather they are the sales staff. The IP lawyers, upper management, and product managers would be the pertenant entities here.
It is important to remember three points here:
1) SCO is alleging the infringing code was not submitted by their employees.
2) Very few people have been told what the code even is, or know specifically what the infringement entails.
3) It is unknown, even to most of SCO, potentially to all of SCO, what products exactly contain allegedly infringing code. I imagine there are some people pulling serious overtime right now puzzling that out.
If you're acting within the authority of your position, on behalf of your company, then yes, your company is liable for your actions. If you're a web admin, with write access to production webservers, and you replace your companies home page with, say, kiddie porn, you're damn right your company is going to get sued - especially if they didn't take IMMEDIATE action to remove you from your position and take the offending website offline.
The company may get sued, but accusation is not the same thing as guilt. Important legal questions would include what policies the company had in place at the time to govern these sorts of things, and what orders form management were. If management ordered employees to distribute kiddie pr0n, that is one thing. But the case in which an employee directly disobeys orders from management without them having any way of knowing (like what may have happened in the SCO case) it is a different story altogether.
Besides, we are talking about an employee of a completely different company. This is more a case in which an employee from IBM would have hacked the SCO web server and placed kiddie pr0n in a folder full of normal images. You're telling me that IBMer would suddenly represent SCO? SCO would be liable? Give me a break!
You don't magically not represent your company anymore if you do something wrong - like not ensure that the code you know to be your trade secret (because you're filing a BILLION dollar lawsuit against one of the largest companies in the world) is removed from your anonymous FTP server, and that you continue distributing it under a license you know to be fundamentally opposed to the sort of controls you're trying to exert of this IP (because you're not a total fucking moron and had your lawyers read and explain the GPL). Yes, you're acting in your capacity as a company officer and within your authority as a representative of the company, and therefore you're actiing as a copyright holder.
I think there are several important points which should be considered in this case. First off, SCO did not necessarily *know* their linux distributions contained their IP, even after they sued IBM. And to be sure, they would have had to check the code. That takes a lot of time, and there are corporate processes to follow and procedures, meetings to convene, etc etc. Secondly, there are serious legal and business implications if, for instance, SCO did not fulfill orders for which people had paid money, did not support customers who had paid for support, etc etc.
So in my view, 3 months is pretty fast for a corporation to completely stop distributing their major product. Besides, the whole point of thi
How is someone outside the company supposed to know whether or not the employee is authorised and therefore representing the comany? IANAL but I am sure that if an employee acts as though they are representing the company then others are entitled to assume that the employee is acting for the company and the company is still bound by the actions of that employee.
In a case like this, it would be a point of law decided in court. The company could always provide an affirmative defense by showing their internal processes and showing that the actions of the employee are not their normal business practice and were not condoned/sanctioned/ordered by management. In a case where an IBM employee released IP without authorization from management they could point to policies specifically prohibiting this.
So if an employee does something good, they are representing the company, but if they do something bad, they're not?
No. If an employee acts in their normal capacity, doing their job as directed by management, they are acting as a representative of the company.
If an employee acts in direct contravention of management orders, which is precisely what would have happened in a case in which someone placed NDA code in the Linux kernel, they do not represent the company. They are acting on their own, making their own decisions, and responsible for their actions. Or at least that is how it works in the US, and how it should work under any reasonable model. Companies historically are held accountable for their corporate actions, eg those taken in accordance with their normal procedures and business practices.
Oddly, when I was looking for the British pound symbol I originally mistook the Italian Lire symbol for the British Pound. Too bad I can't get someone to give me 1000 pounds for 1000 lire ;).
That's essentially the gist of it. #==pound is a USism. The aforementioned long definition explains exactly the problem you describe: US keyboards do not have the £ symbol, so people with typewriters often used # since it was used as a shorthand for the Imperial ("English") Pound. (The story of how the US came to use units which it called English units when the English did not use these units is another tale...)
Find your grade school teachers and shoot them. He says it's the most beautiful, but probably not the most practical. Or, even though it's not the most practical, it's the most beautiful. Etc...
Is English a second language for you? Perhaps it is a US idiom, but the construct "if not the most" is pretty commonly used to mean that the object is *possibly* a superlative, but if it is not, it is pretty close, eg (with thanks to google):
Duck and goose hunting has to be one if not the most expensive sport.
The Bottom Line Sauvignon Blanc is one of, if not the most, affordable, enjoyable and food-friendly white wine grapes around today, enjoying wide appeal and wide distribution.
'In England the main object seems to be what is after all one of the most, if not the most, important gastronomic principle..'.
That last link goes into the subject at some length. I could go on, but I think you get the picture.
To be fair, the poster's original comment is unclear because they do not include the "one of the..." construct in their sentence. So it is possible they said what you think they said, only badly, or what others thought they said. Perhaps the original poster should clarify his/her statement.
In civil case, burglar sues black belt (probably for medical bills, etc.) because black belt used excessive force when trying to stop his crime. Now, in civil trial, the prior bad act is kept out under federal rules of evidence 404b1 because a conviction cannot be used to prove character and it's irrelevant to the matter at hand under rule 403a because the matter is not whether the burglar was committing the crime but whether excessive force was used. And since black belt=excessive force he has to pay the burglar's medical bills. While the burglar is in jail enjoying complimentary ass-rapings. It all evens out.
I am sure this is right (legally) but of course not right morally and defies all logic. How can a jury reasonably determine excessive force without them knowing what action was being prevented? And why can't crimes of which a person has been convicted be used to determine character when for instance unfounded rumours about a woman's sexual history are admissable in rape trials?
As for the burglar enjoying ass-rapings, that may not be the case. Firstly he gets a lighter sentence in any case by plea-bargaining. In today's society, it is likely he won't go to jail at all. The best way to go to jail for a long time in this country is to write a program that plays dvd's, be found in possession of a proscribed substance, or say naughty things about the government on your website. Killing, maiming, robbing and raping don't get you put in jail unless you have a bad lawyer or are otherwise unlucky :P.
Well, ok that is hyperbole. But it is proven that in some of those cases the average number of years served in prison for the nonviolent offenses far outstrips those of the violent offences.