Under the "Tools" menu in firefox there should be an "Extensions" menu item. It will pull up a list of the extensions you have installed. You can choose Greasemonkey from that list and hit the "uninstall" or "update" buttons.
It should be up to the individuals to decide if they want to make such significant mods to their system as purposefully crippling software.
You mean like in Firefox, where when updates are available all the auto-update feature does is display a little "updates available" icon in a browser window, then offer to install the updates when you click the icon?
A little disappointed this is just a promo. I would honestly pay for an anime download service if the prices were reasonable (read: comparable to my local rental place). The attraction of online anime to my mind isn't the illegal free-ness, it's convenience and a greater selection.
If they were legitimately just trying to unsubscribe people from the spam that would be one thing, but they seem to be here actually outright admitting to be intentionally performing a DOS. That kind of changes things, even if the DOS isn't so heavy as to take the spammer all the way offline.
DOSes are bad. DOSes are bad for many reasons, the main one being that they result in quite a lot of collateral damage. Yeah, you'll slow down the spammer. You'll also slow down anyone else who just happens to be leasing some of the same pipes as the spammer...
I think I am confused. What exactly is the difference between ethanol (made from corn waste..?) and biodiesel (made from slaughterhouse waste..?)? Are they the same thing? Do they work differently in practice, can the same engines use them? There seems to be a lot of vagueness in the way the media has been reporting these things.
Oh, definitely, that was entirely hyperbolic. But, if you've seen some of the previous slashdot articles on these subjects (say the Texas case), it isn't that far off. Assuming of course that you browse at score:0.
Because everything the government does has to be either all good or all bad.
There's no way that government could be something with both positive and negative aspects, or a necessary evil with potentially useful functions. There's no way you can view referendum-based local democracy and a national governmental bureaucracy run by termed elected representatives as somehow different. There's no way that you can consider the removal of checks balances and constitutional limitations on law enforcement to be bad, while considering taxing the public and providing public services in return to be potentially good.
Nope, either you fully approve of all potential uses of governments from bombing randomly selected foreign countries to city-level arts funding, and approve equally of all government leaders regardless of the rightness of their specific actions or level of public support they're acting with, or you're an anarchocapitalist.
There's black, and there's white. Anything in between is just hypocrisy.
Now we'll get to see whether the libertarian cries that internet access as a municipal service will cause incurable diseases and economic collapse hold true. I mean, we'll actually have a test case, a normal one not based on ridiculous circumstance (like San Francisco being so incredibly tiny that you can actually serve the entire thing with 802.11).
Of course I'm a little worried that maybe Louisiana is not the best place to try something like this... since Louisiana is by some metrics of measurement the most corruption-plagued state government in the union... does the City of Lafayette tend to suffer from this similarly?
I'm also REALLY curious about what happens if the cable/phone monopolies try to "retaliate" against Lafayette. I think the easiest way for the nation to start seeing the cable/phone companies for what they really are is if we start seeing stories in the media about how if you don't pass laws in your local community the exact way the telco/cable corps want, they'll make you regret it...
but of course considering most people get their news from cable television itself maybe the media just won't speak of such things.
You pretty much describe Chile and MUCH of the world "outside the USA" from what I have studied...Have you considered that maybe this is just the natural rebalance of wealth? Frankly, the USA as it was from WW2 - 2000 could prove to be unsustainable..
Okay, but... that would make a lot more sense if balancing were actually what were happening, rather than the United States becoming internally more imbalanced. The middle class of America may be getting more "balanced" compared to the people of Chile, but the upper class isn't.
I mean, to me, international balancing of wealth would mean other countries gradually becoming as wealthy as the United States. Not the gap between rich and poor in America gradually becoming as large as it is in South America...
And they condemn the CEOs and shareholders who created all these jobs for taking profits when the times are good, but would never accept the alternative -- advocating sacrifice from the employees when times are bad
Well, sure. Times are bad and the CEOs aren't sacrificing. So why should the employees?
However, not a one of the detractors has ever addressed the question of where these people would have gotten a similar job without companies like HP
Well, let's see here. Last I checked the board of HP didn't create the microchip, the computer, the desire and need for information processing hardware among the public, the demand for PCs, or the innovative and quality engineering that originally propelled HP into a position of power.
HP the corporate entity appears as far as I can tell to have just brought together some bright engineers and some manufacturing plants, and put the result within the reach of consumers willing to exchange currency for it.
Is it possible, at all, that somehow this transaction (the engineers designing the computers and printers and such, the plants that manufactured computers and printers and such off those designs, the consumers who decided the thus manufactured products were worth expending their money on) could have somehow come to pass and functioned in some way other than the specific system of a government-created incorporated entity (in this case named "Hewlett Packard") which acts as a legal personage and exclusively accepts all responsibility and blame for actions taken by employees and investors; is owned by a collection of "shareholders" chosen because they hold pieces of paper obtained through cryptic dealings in New York; and is run by a board chosen by those shareholders?
Because if this specific system (the government-licensed "corporation", the stockholders, etc) is in fact the only way that all those people creating and buying hewlett packard computers could have come to pass, then we can call the board of HP "responsible" for all the good things that have resulted from HP's existence. But I'm pretty sure there's more than one way this could have all happened. Which starts to make it seem kind of reasonable to start looking for other ways to think of the HP board. Like, "parasitic middleman".
There's this old (and usually just implied) idea that because something good happened in a capitalist or corporatist system, capitalism or corporatism itself gets to take credit for it. Regardless of the claims of libertarian theologists, I have trouble taking this seriously; capitalism doesn't create wealth, it only distributes it. Nevertheless, capitalism does do a pretty good job (compared to some other systems, at least) of not actually standing in the way of the people who are creating wealth. So that's good, I guess. But what just seems batshit loony to me is when some group of people tries to stand up and take credit for all the good things capitalism makes possible-- saying that hey, all those things we assume capitalism gets to take credit for? well actually I get to take credit for it-- and claim this credit because, um, well seemingly just because they're rich.
No we won't. The moment something better and cheaper* appears we'll jump in with both feet.
The problem is that it's quite likely "better and cheaper" will be something you cannot put in an automobile. If "better and cheaper" is nuclear fusion, or some kind of hyper-efficient solar or wind power cell type... uh... nope, our cars will still be using petroleum.
If "better and cheaper" is something like biodiesel you are of course however right.
However on top of this, like I said, there are economies of scale to consider. The technology is not the only factor in what is "cheaper"; I mean, the expense of petroleum right now is being dictated not by the technology, but by cartel politics. Any new technology will automatically be more expensive at first simply because it is a new technology, and this can at times be a major roadblock to the technology being developed until it's past its new-and-expensive phase. "Spend money to make money" sounds like a good idea to us but to many corporations, it is short-term gain, not long-term gain, that matters.
It reminds me of when people say hydrogen burning cars will solve all emition problems because they produce water. They don't count the emissions that may be needed to produce, compress and ship the hydrogen to the nearest gas station.
The trick with this one is in the may.
Maybe someday we'll find a technology that's clean-burning and energy-efficient to the point where oil is no longer the most cost-effective way to make energy. Say, maybe nuclear fusion. Or maybe oil will eventually get so expensive that other energy technologies start to look not so bad by comparison. But if we ever reach this point, because of the massive installed base and economies of scale of oil systems, especially the ones in cars, we and our economies will still be dependent on oil. So it won't matter that the newer technology is better, we'll keep using oil anyway. That's bad.
Hydrogen may at first be ultimately dependent on "dirty" oil and coal to make the hydrogen in the first place, but because it decouples energy production from energy use, in the long run it gives us the capacity to move on to better energy sources. It's like a nicotine patch, okay, it technically doesn't address the addiction but the thing is eventually you get to take the nicotine patch off.
On top of this, there are situations where if you can't eliminate emissions, moving the emissions is a desirable second best thing. Like, of course we're not making advances in our contribution to global CO2 levels if all these cars in the city burning oil are replaced with a bunch of cars burning hydrogen [PLUS] one huge smoke-belching oil-burning hydrogen plant. But, well, if the city is Los Angeles, and the city is basically one huge smog-trapping bowl surrounded by mountains, and the smoke-belching hydrogen plant is on the other side of the mountains, then never mind the global CO2 levels, you've still made Los Angeles a significantly more pleasant place to live.
Apple switched processor architectures, an incredibly expensive and complicated multi-year undertaking... so that they could jump on to an unproven MICROSOFT technology, a technology that Microsoft isn't even using yet, a technology which consumers so far are reacting EXTREMELY badly to, and a technology that is based around a "Trusted Computing Group" that Apple isn't even part of?
Oh, and furthermore-- Apple did this by way of a cunning plan which keeps their developers totally in the dark about their Palladium plans, even after developers begin using receiving their developer transition kits? Great plan, that. Implement a major hardware change, go to great effort to get prototype hardware in the hands of developers so they can port their apps BEFORE the hardware change hits consumers, then suddenly spring "Hey guys, guess what? Here's ANOTHER major hardware change [Palladium] that your programs may or may not need to take advantage/caution of!" on the developers at the last minute.
Even if any of this made sense, why would Apple need to switch instruction sets? AMD is part of the Trusted Computing Group, and Apple's been using AMD technology (HyperTransport) since the G5. I see no reason treacherous computing and the PPC would be inherently incompatible.
Linux and BSD have distribution licenses. What they don't have are user licenses.
No license is needed to use BSD or Linux, on as many machines or CPUs or whatever as you desire, unless you count the "no warranty" disclaimers in the distribution licenses as being "user licenses". This seems like a pretty nice model to me, though it may be considered a dangerous line of thinking from the perspective of some people (i.e. Microsoft).
Groklaw has covered this 1999 email, but it's in an update to an earlier story rather than a story by itself. I thought they had a pretty good take on it and I wanted to quote something here.
Here's what IBM apparently had to say when the 1999 email first surfaced in court:
"SCO seeks to explain away the e-mail to which I referred by reference to a 1999 memorandum. Now, Mr. Hatch says that he understands that we have this memorandum. We have it because it was given to us hours before today's hearing. We got it this morning. It should have been produced a long time ago, but IBM is supposedly a party in breach of its discovery obligations.
Your Honor, the memo was dated five years ago. It was written three years before the e-mail which I have showed to Your Honor. It is a draft. It says on its face that it is provided, quote, 'subject to the further analysis of Mr. Davidson'. That's on page 5 of the fax sent to us this morning by Mr. Hatch. On the last page of the document, page 6 of the fax, he says, 'I'm awaiting analysis from Mike Davidson on some of these issues since he has a better feel for the history of much of this company.'
"Well, Your Honor, Mr. Davidson weighed in, in the e-mail we provided to Your Honor. In that e-mail, he makes abundantly clear in the last two paragraphs what he said when he weighed in.
People aren't going to stop buying Britney Spears CDs no matter what the RIAA does because they like Britney Spears, and anyway, there's stuff going into their purchase decision besides just what the RIAA does.
People aren't going to stop buying Madden no matter what EA does because they like Madden, and anyway, there's stuff going into their purchase decision besides just what EA does.
But a monitor? People have no attachments to monitors. They're pretty much interchangeable, as are many PC parts, from the average apathetic consumer's perspective. You can't get someone to stop buying Britney Spears CDs because there's no way you'll be able to get them to look at the britney spears cd and see just the RIAA tactics that produced it. But, you can get them to look at this monitor or that monitor and just see the DRM. And you can do this because really, other than the DRM, what distinguishing features does the monitor have?
I don't think it's just apathy. Buying different music requires sacrifices. Buying different commodity PC parts does not require sacrifices.
People aren't going to refrain from buying Longhorn. People in a year or so literally won't have a choice; if you want a new computer you'll be buying Longhorn. However, we can make an impact on the secure monitors. It wouldn't be that hard to convince people (friends, family, neighbors, etc) that the new secure monitors and video cards are to blame (which they are, because if the secure monitors aren't picked up then the feature won't be used by content providers). Explain the feature enough that they'd understand it-- perhaps explain that the movie companies and microsoft want to stop you from doing certain things with your computer, and they can only do it if people buy these monitors-- them that and try to get them to pick some other brand.
Longhorn is unstoppable. Microsoft can and will do literally anything it wants. However a consumer backlash against the feature itself is possible as long as the hardware is targetted. Unfortunately I fear the American consumer is so weak right now no one will bother to try.
It's called nightfall and it's by Isaac Asimov. It's not one of his better works-- it has some neat ideas in it, but it was originally a short story that was later extended to novel length and as a result it feels rather stretched. Perhaps the original short story is better, I don't know (I've only read the novel).
Look, this whole process is retarded, but hiring a consultant to investigate doesn't necessarily mean the end.
Not for IBM's case, no. But it DEFINITELY has a pretty fricking serious impact on the slander/lanham act/whatever cases that RedHat and others will be starting up just as soon as the SCO-IBM case ends, I would expect.
What the consultant thinks isn't really important. What matters is what SCO knew at the time, as contributed to by this consultant.
derivative works from a company working with a Unix license that IBM bought. It was originally a breach of contract case, not a "Linux is a derivative work" case, it just got weird when they started flailing around.
Um, I do not quite think you were following the early portion of this case. "ORIGINALLY" SCO had different claims in the case than they do now, it is just that they have dropped some of them and others. The Sequent claim as far as I'm aware was not part of the originally stated lawsuit. Present, however, were now-dropped trade secret claims that claimed IBM had inserted SCO IP into Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
Under the "Tools" menu in firefox there should be an "Extensions" menu item. It will pull up a list of the extensions you have installed. You can choose Greasemonkey from that list and hit the "uninstall" or "update" buttons.
It should be up to the individuals to decide if they want to make such significant mods to their system as purposefully crippling software.
You mean like in Firefox, where when updates are available all the auto-update feature does is display a little "updates available" icon in a browser window, then offer to install the updates when you click the icon?
A little disappointed this is just a promo. I would honestly pay for an anime download service if the prices were reasonable (read: comparable to my local rental place). The attraction of online anime to my mind isn't the illegal free-ness, it's convenience and a greater selection.
Interesting, thank you for clarifying.
If they were legitimately just trying to unsubscribe people from the spam that would be one thing, but they seem to be here actually outright admitting to be intentionally performing a DOS. That kind of changes things, even if the DOS isn't so heavy as to take the spammer all the way offline.
DOSes are bad. DOSes are bad for many reasons, the main one being that they result in quite a lot of collateral damage. Yeah, you'll slow down the spammer. You'll also slow down anyone else who just happens to be leasing some of the same pipes as the spammer...
I think I am confused. What exactly is the difference between ethanol (made from corn waste..?) and biodiesel (made from slaughterhouse waste..?)? Are they the same thing? Do they work differently in practice, can the same engines use them? There seems to be a lot of vagueness in the way the media has been reporting these things.
What does Nickelodeon think???
I see you aren't prone to exaggeration.
Oh, definitely, that was entirely hyperbolic. But, if you've seen some of the previous slashdot articles on these subjects (say the Texas case), it isn't that far off. Assuming of course that you browse at score:0.
^_^
Would the "green"/"sustainable"/"quality of life" innovations of living in this city happen to include not being beaten when taken into police custody?
Just curious...
Because everything the government does has to be either all good or all bad.
There's no way that government could be something with both positive and negative aspects, or a necessary evil with potentially useful functions. There's no way you can view referendum-based local democracy and a national governmental bureaucracy run by termed elected representatives as somehow different. There's no way that you can consider the removal of checks balances and constitutional limitations on law enforcement to be bad, while considering taxing the public and providing public services in return to be potentially good.
Nope, either you fully approve of all potential uses of governments from bombing randomly selected foreign countries to city-level arts funding, and approve equally of all government leaders regardless of the rightness of their specific actions or level of public support they're acting with, or you're an anarchocapitalist.
There's black, and there's white. Anything in between is just hypocrisy.
Now we'll get to see whether the libertarian cries that internet access as a municipal service will cause incurable diseases and economic collapse hold true. I mean, we'll actually have a test case, a normal one not based on ridiculous circumstance (like San Francisco being so incredibly tiny that you can actually serve the entire thing with 802.11).
...
Of course I'm a little worried that maybe Louisiana is not the best place to try something like this... since Louisiana is by some metrics of measurement the most corruption-plagued state government in the union... does the City of Lafayette tend to suffer from this similarly?
I'm also REALLY curious about what happens if the cable/phone monopolies try to "retaliate" against Lafayette. I think the easiest way for the nation to start seeing the cable/phone companies for what they really are is if we start seeing stories in the media about how if you don't pass laws in your local community the exact way the telco/cable corps want, they'll make you regret it
but of course considering most people get their news from cable television itself maybe the media just won't speak of such things.
You pretty much describe Chile and MUCH of the world "outside the USA" from what I have studied ...Have you considered that maybe this is just the natural rebalance of wealth? Frankly, the USA as it was from WW2 - 2000 could prove to be unsustainable..
Okay, but... that would make a lot more sense if balancing were actually what were happening, rather than the United States becoming internally more imbalanced. The middle class of America may be getting more "balanced" compared to the people of Chile, but the upper class isn't.
I mean, to me, international balancing of wealth would mean other countries gradually becoming as wealthy as the United States. Not the gap between rich and poor in America gradually becoming as large as it is in South America...
HP the corporate entity appears as far as I can tell to have just brought together some bright engineers and some manufacturing plants, and put the result within the reach of consumers willing to exchange currency for it.
Is it possible, at all, that somehow this transaction (the engineers designing the computers and printers and such, the plants that manufactured computers and printers and such off those designs, the consumers who decided the thus manufactured products were worth expending their money on) could have somehow come to pass and functioned in some way other than the specific system of a government-created incorporated entity (in this case named "Hewlett Packard") which acts as a legal personage and exclusively accepts all responsibility and blame for actions taken by employees and investors; is owned by a collection of "shareholders" chosen because they hold pieces of paper obtained through cryptic dealings in New York; and is run by a board chosen by those shareholders?
Because if this specific system (the government-licensed "corporation", the stockholders, etc) is in fact the only way that all those people creating and buying hewlett packard computers could have come to pass, then we can call the board of HP "responsible" for all the good things that have resulted from HP's existence. But I'm pretty sure there's more than one way this could have all happened. Which starts to make it seem kind of reasonable to start looking for other ways to think of the HP board. Like, "parasitic middleman".
There's this old (and usually just implied) idea that because something good happened in a capitalist or corporatist system, capitalism or corporatism itself gets to take credit for it. Regardless of the claims of libertarian theologists, I have trouble taking this seriously; capitalism doesn't create wealth, it only distributes it. Nevertheless, capitalism does do a pretty good job (compared to some other systems, at least) of not actually standing in the way of the people who are creating wealth. So that's good, I guess. But what just seems batshit loony to me is when some group of people tries to stand up and take credit for all the good things capitalism makes possible-- saying that hey, all those things we assume capitalism gets to take credit for? well actually I get to take credit for it-- and claim this credit because, um, well seemingly just because they're rich.
No we won't. The moment something better and cheaper* appears we'll jump in with both feet.
The problem is that it's quite likely "better and cheaper" will be something you cannot put in an automobile. If "better and cheaper" is nuclear fusion, or some kind of hyper-efficient solar or wind power cell type... uh... nope, our cars will still be using petroleum.
If "better and cheaper" is something like biodiesel you are of course however right.
However on top of this, like I said, there are economies of scale to consider. The technology is not the only factor in what is "cheaper"; I mean, the expense of petroleum right now is being dictated not by the technology, but by cartel politics. Any new technology will automatically be more expensive at first simply because it is a new technology, and this can at times be a major roadblock to the technology being developed until it's past its new-and-expensive phase. "Spend money to make money" sounds like a good idea to us but to many corporations, it is short-term gain, not long-term gain, that matters.
It reminds me of when people say hydrogen burning cars will solve all emition problems because they produce water. They don't count the emissions that may be needed to produce, compress and ship the hydrogen to the nearest gas station.
The trick with this one is in the may.
Maybe someday we'll find a technology that's clean-burning and energy-efficient to the point where oil is no longer the most cost-effective way to make energy. Say, maybe nuclear fusion. Or maybe oil will eventually get so expensive that other energy technologies start to look not so bad by comparison. But if we ever reach this point, because of the massive installed base and economies of scale of oil systems, especially the ones in cars, we and our economies will still be dependent on oil. So it won't matter that the newer technology is better, we'll keep using oil anyway. That's bad.
Hydrogen may at first be ultimately dependent on "dirty" oil and coal to make the hydrogen in the first place, but because it decouples energy production from energy use, in the long run it gives us the capacity to move on to better energy sources. It's like a nicotine patch, okay, it technically doesn't address the addiction but the thing is eventually you get to take the nicotine patch off.
On top of this, there are situations where if you can't eliminate emissions, moving the emissions is a desirable second best thing. Like, of course we're not making advances in our contribution to global CO2 levels if all these cars in the city burning oil are replaced with a bunch of cars burning hydrogen [PLUS] one huge smoke-belching oil-burning hydrogen plant. But, well, if the city is Los Angeles, and the city is basically one huge smog-trapping bowl surrounded by mountains, and the smoke-belching hydrogen plant is on the other side of the mountains, then never mind the global CO2 levels, you've still made Los Angeles a significantly more pleasant place to live.
Apple switched processor architectures, an incredibly expensive and complicated multi-year undertaking... so that they could jump on to an unproven MICROSOFT technology, a technology that Microsoft isn't even using yet, a technology which consumers so far are reacting EXTREMELY badly to, and a technology that is based around a "Trusted Computing Group" that Apple isn't even part of?
Oh, and furthermore-- Apple did this by way of a cunning plan which keeps their developers totally in the dark about their Palladium plans, even after developers begin using receiving their developer transition kits? Great plan, that. Implement a major hardware change, go to great effort to get prototype hardware in the hands of developers so they can port their apps BEFORE the hardware change hits consumers, then suddenly spring "Hey guys, guess what? Here's ANOTHER major hardware change [Palladium] that your programs may or may not need to take advantage/caution of!" on the developers at the last minute.
Even if any of this made sense, why would Apple need to switch instruction sets? AMD is part of the Trusted Computing Group, and Apple's been using AMD technology (HyperTransport) since the G5. I see no reason treacherous computing and the PPC would be inherently incompatible.
I hate "analysts".
Even Linux and BSD have licenses...
Linux and BSD have distribution licenses. What they don't have are user licenses.
No license is needed to use BSD or Linux, on as many machines or CPUs or whatever as you desire, unless you count the "no warranty" disclaimers in the distribution licenses as being "user licenses". This seems like a pretty nice model to me, though it may be considered a dangerous line of thinking from the perspective of some people (i.e. Microsoft).
So I built a Forth Windows!
Windows written in Forth?? Wait, that actually sounds like something I'd pay to see.
Here's what IBM apparently had to say when the 1999 email first surfaced in court:
People aren't going to stop buying Britney Spears CDs no matter what the RIAA does because they like Britney Spears, and anyway, there's stuff going into their purchase decision besides just what the RIAA does.
People aren't going to stop buying Madden no matter what EA does because they like Madden, and anyway, there's stuff going into their purchase decision besides just what EA does.
But a monitor? People have no attachments to monitors. They're pretty much interchangeable, as are many PC parts, from the average apathetic consumer's perspective. You can't get someone to stop buying Britney Spears CDs because there's no way you'll be able to get them to look at the britney spears cd and see just the RIAA tactics that produced it. But, you can get them to look at this monitor or that monitor and just see the DRM. And you can do this because really, other than the DRM, what distinguishing features does the monitor have?
I don't think it's just apathy. Buying different music requires sacrifices. Buying different commodity PC parts does not require sacrifices.
The problem is, people won't KNOW what it is
What this means is, WE HAVE TO TELL THEM.
People aren't going to refrain from buying Longhorn. People in a year or so literally won't have a choice; if you want a new computer you'll be buying Longhorn. However, we can make an impact on the secure monitors. It wouldn't be that hard to convince people (friends, family, neighbors, etc) that the new secure monitors and video cards are to blame (which they are, because if the secure monitors aren't picked up then the feature won't be used by content providers). Explain the feature enough that they'd understand it-- perhaps explain that the movie companies and microsoft want to stop you from doing certain things with your computer, and they can only do it if people buy these monitors-- them that and try to get them to pick some other brand.
Longhorn is unstoppable. Microsoft can and will do literally anything it wants. However a consumer backlash against the feature itself is possible as long as the hardware is targetted. Unfortunately I fear the American consumer is so weak right now no one will bother to try.
It's called nightfall and it's by Isaac Asimov. It's not one of his better works-- it has some neat ideas in it, but it was originally a short story that was later extended to novel length and as a result it feels rather stretched. Perhaps the original short story is better, I don't know (I've only read the novel).
Why would someone bother doing that?
Because sometimes evidence in court cases is provided in printed form.
Look, this whole process is retarded, but hiring a consultant to investigate doesn't necessarily mean the end.
Not for IBM's case, no. But it DEFINITELY has a pretty fricking serious impact on the slander/lanham act/whatever cases that RedHat and others will be starting up just as soon as the SCO-IBM case ends, I would expect.
What the consultant thinks isn't really important. What matters is what SCO knew at the time, as contributed to by this consultant.
derivative works from a company working with a Unix license that IBM bought. It was originally a breach of contract case, not a "Linux is a derivative work" case, it just got weird when they started flailing around.
Um, I do not quite think you were following the early portion of this case. "ORIGINALLY" SCO had different claims in the case than they do now, it is just that they have dropped some of them and others. The Sequent claim as far as I'm aware was not part of the originally stated lawsuit. Present, however, were now-dropped trade secret claims that claimed IBM had inserted SCO IP into Linux.