That would be a Pratchett-related deprivation symptom.
You wouldn't have skipped the last Discworld book (Monstrous Regiment) by any chance? If so, that would explain the deprivation. If not, you may need to reread all 30 books to cure your deprivation.
You don't need the GPL to use the software in the same way that you don't need a license to read a copyrighted book.
If a book is distributed under the GPL you wouldn't need to agree to the GPL to read that book, only to copy and redistribute it or derivative works based on the book. It is the same with software (the copies made on the hard drive and in memory are necessary steps for the normal use of the software and are therefore no more subject to the Copyright Act than your copy of an e-book in memory is).
"If the GPL were to become the heart of the case, and declared invalid, how many new products proprietary products would be on the store shelves in the following weeks?"
Exactly 0 more than there would be if the GPL was found valid.
They need to find a way to have GPL'd code put in the public domain to be able to incorporate it in proprietary software and invalidating the GPL would not do the trick, it would merely prevent you to gain additional rights than what you get under copyright law by complying with it, like redistributing it, so any new proprietary software based on the GPL after having it found invalid would quickly find itself in court given that it would be a copyright violation.
However, concerning the Linux/SCO thing you wrote:
"ok, i'll bite a little. I have a hard time beleiving that everything in linux is a 100% clean room implementation, when the point of linux and the GNU toolchain was to make a freeware clone of UNIX. So, im predisposed to thinking there's some lifted code or designs in linux."
Now let's see how it works with two pieces of proprietary software:
Ok, I'll bite a little. I have a hard time believing that everything in Internet Explorer is a 100% clean room implementation, when the point of Internet Explorer was to make a freeware clone of Netscape. So, I'm predisposed to thinking there's some lifted code or designs in Internet Explorer.
Of course there is a lot of designs in Linux that have been lifted from Unix. That would be because most of the design of Unix are either obvious (use of many little tools and combination of them to do bigger tasks) or widely published in books and academia. A lot of Unix code has also be publicly disclosed under the BSD license by SCO themselves.
That doesn't means that there isn't any code, design, or other proprietary aspects in Linux but so far nobody has shown the presence of any, and even SCO, which has the incentive of a potential $3billion to find such things has not been able to do so.
So i think part of what SCO is doing is reactionary - they're saying "this can't keep happening - these people are cloning our designs, cloning our interfaces, and we think they're just flat out stealing code in some cases. then they give it away for free and we of course suffer as a result"
Same thing MS did with IE (except that I do not know of any code stealing). Same thing that any company does in a capitalist world: they compete.
the biggest thing that irritates me is that most slashdot posters beleive 110% that the whole case is completely BS and that SCO is making a frivolous lawsuit.
SCO might have something to their case, yes, but even though it worked with Linux for 8-9 years and even though the Linux development process is publicly viewable they still haven't managed to precisely say what their claims are, prompting IBM to file a motion to compel discovery to force them to be more precise than "Here is the Linux source code; it's in there somewhere".
Even if SCO had been wronged by IBM, their inability to tell IBM what is wrong exactly 6 months after filing the lawsuit makes one believe that they didn't have sufficient ground to file this lawsuit and were hoping to find enough evidence during discovery, which, if it is the case, would make this lawsuit frivolous.
And if they didn't do that then why don't they show to IBM and the court? After all, Darl McBride said: "We feel very good about the evidence that is going to show up in court." so they should feel good about showing it up now that they are in court, so why don't they do?
I personally feel ready to consider part or all of SCO's allegations as possibly true as soon as they manage to frame a coherent legal argument as to why these allegations are true. Given the current lack of coherence from their part I am currently forced to conclude that either their case is BS or that their lawyers are incompetent.
Another thing to note is that their lawfirm (Boies, Schiller and Flexner) initially took the case on a contingency basis (i.e. would only get money if they won against IBM) but recently changed their financial agreement to part contingency (pair in part if they win but with money/shares or other assets paid now). Might they have realised that SCO's claims are baseless or have they realised that even if some of their claim are true the likely amount of damage that they might get is too small to be worth taking only part of the spoils?
Also, sorry if I appear to have rabbies in this post but given SCO's actions (hyperbolic statements in the press and failure to follow up in a court setting) it's hard to stay calm about it if you care:).
On Redhat Linux there should be Guile available (on one of the CD's if it is not installed).
I like to start emacs type M-x shell (the Meta key is Escape on PC's) and type guile (you can use e-lisp code in their.emacs to automate it a bit but without it M-x shell and then guile from the shell works well).
I then use one/many buffer(s) for my open files (in Scheme mode there is simple syntax highlighting and parentheses matching and tab allows you to indent properly, which helps a lot) and the shell buffer to test the code.
An additional file allows me to load everything I need instead of writing a lot of (load "filename.scm") and a few xpdf/webbrowser windows for the doc I need and i am set up. It may be a bit rudimentary but it works well for me and it beats vi (unless you love it and hate emacs of course).
In Scheme you create continuations with call-with-current-continuation (often shortened to call/cc) and the point where you use it is the point where you jump back. For example:
(define call/cc call-with-current-continuation) ; shortcut for the lazy
It will create a continuation (containing (+ 5 [] 10) and call the unnamed function (created by lambda) passed to call/cc as an argument.
That function received the continuation created as argument and set the value of my-continuation to be that continuation. It then returns the integer 6.
The + function is then executed with the arguments: 5 6 10 which will return 21.
You can now use the continuation in my-continuation like any other first class value (integers, pairs, symbols, functions...) and call the continuation with other arguments, like:
(my-continuation 100)
which will conceptually replace the (call/cc...) part with 100 instead of 6 like the first time and jump back to the point in your code where you created the continuation and give the result 115.
Because by calling the continuation we discarded the current continuation (define c []) for the called one (define b (+ 5 [] 10)) with 345 replacing the []. This is why another poster said that call/cc is the equivalent to goto for functional languages.
I don't know if it makes things clearer or murkier but for more info on continuations and Scheme in general read "Teach Yourself Scheme in Fixnum Days": http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/dorai/t-y-scheme/t-y-s cheme.html
The question is whether YOU read it or rather, whether you understood it.
This is SCO responding to IBM's motion to compel discovery in which IBM alleged that SCO failed to properly claim a substantive claim and asked the judge to force SCO to tell them what is their claim exactly (filenames and lines of code instead of "it's in what we gave you" with what they gave being, among other things, the entirety of Linux) and SCO answered this motion in the current response.
In other word, SCO gave vague answers to IBM in order to delay discovery (discovery that their case is bullshit, that is) and IBM asked the judge to force them to give that information so SCO can't delay anymore and SCO responded why they think they shouldn't be forced to reveal them and added that IBM didn't answer their discoveries either. Let me repeat that louder, given you apparent reading disability: SCO IS DELAYING, IBM ASKED THE JUDGE TO MAKE THEM STOP DELAYING DISCOVERY AND SCO SAID WHY THEY SHOULDN'T BE STOPPED.
My guess is, given that one of the reasons that SCO thought the motion should be denied was that they have given IBM better answer to their interrogatories the same day as their response, IBM will either be pleased enough by it to withdraw their motion in their response (but given SCO's unwillingness to show IBM what they claimed to have found during the last six months it seems unlikely) or IBM will not be satisfied by SCO's supplemental answers and will explain in their response why they are inadequate and fail to remove the need, in IBM's view, to have the judge force them to answer adequately by granting the motion to compel discovery.
When reading the title I thought "Shit! AMD already have 3 problems with the Athlon 64". Shouldn't it be "Athlon 64 Motherboard Triple _Treat_ Round-Up"?
I already read it, I was just sarcastically pointing to the idiocy of your implicit definition of a unit but it seemed to have passed way over your tiny brain.
"If I looked at your laptop and saw a file named "Plan for World domination.rtf", I'd probably lose a lot of respect for you. Using such an obvious filename for your plan isn't very smart."
"That's my grocery list, actually."
Yeah, but the day you need some detergent and a bit of fertiliser for your flowers don't complain if you get carted of by the FBI.
Except that the first Top500 list was published in 1993;).
I've run Linpack on my computer (with -DROLL -O4 was the fastest) and got 343Mflops on a 1.16GHz Celeron.
Given that the computers ranked 472-500 on the list in 1993 were around 420Mflops I would indeed expect a 2.4GHz P4 to be more powerful than them (if only because of the double clockspeed and the need to only get 25% improvement over my numbers).
Oh, also a little tidbit, the computer ranked #500 in the current list is 4 times more powerful than the one ranked #1 in 1993.
True, but what if it had been able to "escape to your powerbook" by cracking it and copying itself (notwithstanding the need to go from one ISA to the PowerPC ISA) would you consider that intelligent enough? Unless it was specifically programmed to act that way in that circumstance I probably would.
Huh? The original Tux design was created by Larry Ewing with "Permission to use and/or modify this image is granted provided you acknowledge me lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP if someone asks."
I really doubt that he transfered his copyright to Ximian given that there is no need for that so you are most probably mistaken and Ximian only has the copyright to some derivative of Tux, like anyone making a new image with Tux (but if you are right I would like to have more info about it).
What about if you are not the one spending the money?
I mean, there are a lot of people stealing credit cards so it should be possible to have that one fall in the wrong hand (like if somebody fished it out of a bin or if it accidentally felt on the ground and somebody picked it up).
The thieves are the one running the bill up so they are the one committing fraud and you didn't sign anything so they shouldn't be able to bill you.
This webbug is actually put there to be discovered by us so that we will not suspect the existence of a far more ghastly thing lurking in the code of the DNC website;).
Slashdot Mirror
That would be a Pratchett-related deprivation symptom.
You wouldn't have skipped the last Discworld book (Monstrous Regiment) by any chance? If so, that would explain the deprivation. If not, you may need to reread all 30 books to cure your deprivation.
There is no vagueness.
You don't need the GPL to use the software in the same way that you don't need a license to read a copyrighted book.
If a book is distributed under the GPL you wouldn't need to agree to the GPL to read that book, only to copy and redistribute it or derivative works based on the book. It is the same with software (the copies made on the hard drive and in memory are necessary steps for the normal use of the software and are therefore no more subject to the Copyright Act than your copy of an e-book in memory is).
"If the GPL were to become the heart of the case, and declared invalid, how many new products proprietary products would be on the store shelves in the following weeks?"
Exactly 0 more than there would be if the GPL was found valid.
They need to find a way to have GPL'd code put in the public domain to be able to incorporate it in proprietary software and invalidating the GPL would not do the trick, it would merely prevent you to gain additional rights than what you get under copyright law by complying with it, like redistributing it, so any new proprietary software based on the GPL after having it found invalid would quickly find itself in court given that it would be a copyright violation.
Well, it is true that GPL == French given that the motto of France is: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.
Isn't their logo a chameleon? It will provide good camouflage for the Army.
sed 's/text/belgium/g'
Sure, because belgium is going to plot a terrorist attack using beer, fries and seashells, one time.
Nice answer.
However, concerning the Linux/SCO thing you wrote: Now let's see how it works with two pieces of proprietary software: Ok, I'll bite a little. I have a hard time believing that everything in Internet Explorer is a 100% clean room implementation, when the point of Internet Explorer was to make a freeware clone of Netscape. So, I'm predisposed to thinking there's some lifted code or designs in Internet Explorer.
Of course there is a lot of designs in Linux that have been lifted from Unix. That would be because most of the design of Unix are either obvious (use of many little tools and combination of them to do bigger tasks) or widely published in books and academia. A lot of Unix code has also be publicly disclosed under the BSD license by SCO themselves.
That doesn't means that there isn't any code, design, or other proprietary aspects in Linux but so far nobody has shown the presence of any, and even SCO, which has the incentive of a potential $3billion to find such things has not been able to do so.
Same thing MS did with IE (except that I do not know of any code stealing). Same thing that any company does in a capitalist world: they compete.
SCO might have something to their case, yes, but even though it worked with Linux for 8-9 years and even though the Linux development process is publicly viewable they still haven't managed to precisely say what their claims are, prompting IBM to file a motion to compel discovery to force them to be more precise than "Here is the Linux source code; it's in there somewhere".
Even if SCO had been wronged by IBM, their inability to tell IBM what is wrong exactly 6 months after filing the lawsuit makes one believe that they didn't have sufficient ground to file this lawsuit and were hoping to find enough evidence during discovery, which, if it is the case, would make this lawsuit frivolous.
And if they didn't do that then why don't they show to IBM and the court? After all, Darl McBride said: "We feel very good about the evidence that is going to show up in court." so they should feel good about showing it up now that they are in court, so why don't they do?
I personally feel ready to consider part or all of SCO's allegations as possibly true as soon as they manage to frame a coherent legal argument as to why these allegations are true. Given the current lack of coherence from their part I am currently forced to conclude that either their case is BS or that their lawyers are incompetent.
Another thing to note is that their lawfirm (Boies, Schiller and Flexner) initially took the case on a contingency basis (i.e. would only get money if they won against IBM) but recently changed their financial agreement to part contingency (pair in part if they win but with money/shares or other assets paid now). Might they have realised that SCO's claims are baseless or have they realised that even if some of their claim are true the likely amount of damage that they might get is too small to be worth taking only part of the spoils?
Also, sorry if I appear to have rabbies in this post but given SCO's actions (hyperbolic statements in the press and failure to follow up in a court setting) it's hard to stay calm about it if you care
On Redhat Linux there should be Guile available (on one of the CD's if it is not installed).
.emacs to automate it a bit but without it M-x shell and then guile from the shell works well).
I like to start emacs type M-x shell (the Meta key is Escape on PC's) and type guile (you can use e-lisp code in their
I then use one/many buffer(s) for my open files (in Scheme mode there is simple syntax highlighting and parentheses matching and tab allows you to indent properly, which helps a lot) and the shell buffer to test the code.
An additional file allows me to load everything I need instead of writing a lot of (load "filename.scm") and a few xpdf/webbrowser windows for the doc I need and i am set up. It may be a bit rudimentary but it works well for me and it beats vi (unless you love it and hate emacs of course).
Unless he is deliberately trying to obfuscate something.
In Scheme you create continuations with call-with-current-continuation (often shortened to call/cc) and the point where you use it is the point where you jump back. For example:
...) part with 100 instead of 6 like the first time and jump back to the point in your code where you created the continuation and give the result 115.
s cheme.html
(define call/cc call-with-current-continuation) ; shortcut for the lazy
(define my-continuation 0)
(+ 5 (call/cc
(lambda (cont)
(set! my-continuation cont)
6)) 10)
It will create a continuation (containing (+ 5 [] 10) and call the unnamed function (created by lambda) passed to call/cc as an argument.
That function received the continuation created as argument and set the value of my-continuation to be that continuation. It then returns the integer 6.
The + function is then executed with the arguments: 5 6 10 which will return 21.
You can now use the continuation in my-continuation like any other first class value (integers, pairs, symbols, functions...) and call the continuation with other arguments, like:
(my-continuation 100)
which will conceptually replace the (call/cc
So if you have:
(define a
(+ 5 (call/cc
(lambda (cont)
(set! my-continuation cont)
6)) 10)
;b will be 21
b
21
(my-continuation 100)
b
115
;But if we try:
(define c (my-continuation 345))
b
360
c
ERROR: Unbound Variable
Because by calling the continuation we discarded the current continuation (define c []) for the called one (define b (+ 5 [] 10)) with 345 replacing the []. This is why another poster said that call/cc is the equivalent to goto for functional languages.
I don't know if it makes things clearer or murkier but for more info on continuations and Scheme in general read "Teach Yourself Scheme in Fixnum Days": http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/dorai/t-y-scheme/t-y-
It's quite a good tutorial.
The question is whether YOU read it or rather, whether you understood it.
This is SCO responding to IBM's motion to compel discovery in which IBM alleged that SCO failed to properly claim a substantive claim and asked the judge to force SCO to tell them what is their claim exactly (filenames and lines of code instead of "it's in what we gave you" with what they gave being, among other things, the entirety of Linux) and SCO answered this motion in the current response.
In other word, SCO gave vague answers to IBM in order to delay discovery (discovery that their case is bullshit, that is) and IBM asked the judge to force them to give that information so SCO can't delay anymore and SCO responded why they think they shouldn't be forced to reveal them and added that IBM didn't answer their discoveries either. Let me repeat that louder, given you apparent reading disability: SCO IS DELAYING, IBM ASKED THE JUDGE TO MAKE THEM STOP DELAYING DISCOVERY AND SCO SAID WHY THEY SHOULDN'T BE STOPPED.
My guess is, given that one of the reasons that SCO thought the motion should be denied was that they have given IBM better answer to their interrogatories the same day as their response, IBM will either be pleased enough by it to withdraw their motion in their response (but given SCO's unwillingness to show IBM what they claimed to have found during the last six months it seems unlikely) or IBM will not be satisfied by SCO's supplemental answers and will explain in their response why they are inadequate and fail to remove the need, in IBM's view, to have the judge force them to answer adequately by granting the motion to compel discovery.
When reading the title I thought "Shit! AMD already have 3 problems with the Athlon 64". Shouldn't it be "Athlon 64 Motherboard Triple _Treat_ Round-Up"?
I already read it, I was just sarcastically pointing to the idiocy of your implicit definition of a unit but it seemed to have passed way over your tiny brain.
"If I looked at your laptop and saw a file named "Plan for World domination.rtf", I'd probably lose a lot of respect for you. Using such an obvious filename for your plan isn't very smart."
"That's my grocery list, actually."
Yeah, but the day you need some detergent and a bit of fertiliser for your flowers don't complain if you get carted of by the FBI.
Does that mean that you consider kilometers and miles the same unit?
Except that the first Top500 list was published in 1993
I've run Linpack on my computer (with -DROLL -O4 was the fastest) and got 343Mflops on a 1.16GHz Celeron.
Given that the computers ranked 472-500 on the list in 1993 were around 420Mflops I would indeed expect a 2.4GHz P4 to be more powerful than them (if only because of the double clockspeed and the need to only get 25% improvement over my numbers).
Oh, also a little tidbit, the computer ranked #500 in the current list is 4 times more powerful than the one ranked #1 in 1993.
True, but what if it had been able to "escape to your powerbook" by cracking it and copying itself (notwithstanding the need to go from one ISA to the PowerPC ISA) would you consider that intelligent enough? Unless it was specifically programmed to act that way in that circumstance I probably would.
I don't understand, I don't have any K on my computer, but I think a cracker got into my computer, he even left a footprint.
Angel? Angels? Angels? ?
Don't you mean daemonettes?
No, not enlargement, I can manage enlargement without help. Entallerment is much harder though.
I'm sure that if you asked the guys what underwear they are wearing they will hang up very fast and avoid calling you again if they can.
Huh? The original Tux design was created by Larry Ewing with "Permission to use and/or modify this image is granted provided you acknowledge me lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP if someone asks."
I really doubt that he transfered his copyright to Ximian given that there is no need for that so you are most probably mistaken and Ximian only has the copyright to some derivative of Tux, like anyone making a new image with Tux (but if you are right I would like to have more info about it).
What about if you are not the one spending the money?
I mean, there are a lot of people stealing credit cards so it should be possible to have that one fall in the wrong hand (like if somebody fished it out of a bin or if it accidentally felt on the ground and somebody picked it up).
The thieves are the one running the bill up so they are the one committing fraud and you didn't sign anything so they shouldn't be able to bill you.
Your tinfoil hat seems defective.
This webbug is actually put there to be discovered by us so that we will not suspect the existence of a far more ghastly thing lurking in the code of the DNC website
"Sorry, but a real Mac fan would have said "Honey, I know we're still on our honeymoon, but this is PANTHER!!!""
More like:
"Honey, I know our wedding ceremony is this afternoon, but this is PANTHER".