Everyone who wants to hire anyone here in St. Louis seems to be a "Microsoft shop"
It's changing though. We now have customers calling us and saying that they're throwing out Microsoft altogether and they want a Linux solution (we sell software targeted at big business) within weeks or a small number of months. It started as a trickle, but it's building rapidly. Very rapidly. It's kind of like spam was in the mid 90s. It's not a lot yet, but there's a definite pattern forming that's pointing to torrents a couple of years down the track.
According to my lawyer friends, the definition of derivative works for software is not well defined
You know how there's incompetent techs (actually a good proportion of SlashDot readers would find most techs incompetent)? Well the situation is no different in law. It scares the living shit out of me that some of my classmates who manage to just pass their subjects then go on to become practicing lawyers. Then again perhaps my perspective is influenced by the fact that my most common result in law subjects is top of the year with most of the balance being in the top two or three, but I don't want to be a leach, hence I have no intention of ever practicing. I do think that it should be a condition of practicing law that you publish the grades you receive in law school since most people can't tell the difference between a good lawyer and a bad one.
Now, the software industry likes to claim that "derivative work" means something different in to software industry, but it doesn't. That's one of the things the Altai case was about - the same rules that apply to other works also apply to software.
The real difference with software is that software companies tend to keep the primary work in which copyright substists (source code) secret. That doesn't make the law any different at all - in fact this secrecy is quite irrelevant to the issue of whether there is infringement of copyright.
Because of this penchant for secrecy, software companies like to claim they have certain rights they don't, and other people might be misled into believing that they have them, but that doesn't make them any more real.
Has this ever been tested for software? If so, can you provide a reference
Altai vs Computer Associates is a good starting point. Anything else that decides something related to software specific copyrights is likely to cite that, so if you search Lexis for that you should find everything you'll ever need.
Since we do not have 400 years of complete and accurate climate data there can be no scientific finding of increased climatic change. There can only be guesses based on suppositions and models and projections.
It's not necessary to use solely "suppositions, models and projections" to measure past temperature. There are forensic sources of evidence as to these matters. One of the better known forensic sources of evidence as to temperature comes from examining the cross-sections of trees, but as I recall there are lots of others.
The temperature of the earth has been hotter then this before, and it has been colder. Yes, we may be in a time of man-made temperature increases, but we still don't know for sure.
We don't know "for sure" that the Earth orbits the Sun either - it could be an elaborate illusion we don't quite understand yet.
The best available evidence points to the fact that the Earth is warming now. Sure, it could be one huge coincidence that there's been a dramatic exponential increase since the start of the industrial revolution, but absent compelling evidence to the contrary, the best hypothesis available would suggest a possible link.
Now, having established a possible link, theories have been advanced to explain that link. There are clearly known properties in gasses that are released by industrial processes that have the potential to cause such an increase. The theories clearly demonstrate viability. They also support the observation of a dramatic increase since the start of the industrial revolution.
Competing theories revolving around millenia long cycles tend not to explain sudden increases measured in the past 150 years, and even less so the even sharper increases measured in the past decade. You see, the theory doesn't need to just explain warming. It needs to explain the rate. It also needs to explain significant temporal pattern changes.
The best explanation we have for the current rate and its timing is that it is caused by industrial emissions. Until there is an alternative explanation that is superiour - that is, supported by better evidence and/or better explains the facts, then the one that's the best available at this time is the one we have to go with at this time.
Now, setting aside the issue of what the cause of global warming is, we still have the fact that there is significant warming in the last 150 years. Few people seriously dispute that. A change in climate certainly has a high probability of changing which species are viable, and to what extent. It's not so much a "do it for the environment" thing - the concern is not for furry animals or plants, the concern is that climate change will reduce the planet's carrying capacity for humans.
Now perhaps some thinning of the ranks would be good, but that tends not to be the prevailing view. If we want to maintain carrying capacity, and this means that according to the best knowlege we have now, maintaining climatic conditions, we need to ensure that we're at a bare minimum not doing things that appear to be causing climate change, according to the best available theories. In fact the contrary position suggests we need to do more, not less, because we would not have demonstrated a need to control the environment, and we need to be able to do so.
We don't ignore theories because they're not 100.00000% accurate - except in certain parts of the bible belt. We go with what is supportably the most accurate we have. Yes, global warming could be a natural cycle millenia long. It could also be the product of a conspiracy of hyper-intelligent dolphins that live at ocean depths we can't explore yet. You don't go with the less scientifically supportable theory because it might be right - you go with the more scientifically supportable theory until such time as it's shown to be wrong or some other theory supercedes it. It makes little sense to bitch about that - by all means do research and see if you can come up with better explanations and better theories, but don't bitch about the fact that this other one is currently the best.
For the time being, global warming caused by industrial emissions is the best scientifically supportable theory available in this area, and it's the one that best explains the observations. This makes it the best basis for decision-making policy at this time. When you add the question of insurance into the equation - if global warming is from industrial admissions is an accurate model and we do nothing, we as a species could be in serious trouble - the best course of present action is put far beyond doubt.
.... or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted....
In a very strict reading of the definition, ANY unix-style OS could be claimed to be a recast, transformed, or adapted verion of some earlier unix OS.
Not true. That general phrase follows a bunch of more specific ones in a list. When reading a statute, a general phrase following a list of more specific ones is given a scope as indicated by the specific ones. All the items in the list involve some modification or transformation of a literal copy of the original work. This is the scope of the more general term.
The cases are quite clear on where the boundaries of "derivative work" are, and what is protected by copyright. Just because Linux does "the same thing" as Unix "in the same way", does not make it a derivative work. The things that are the same are what in copyright terms are called the "ideas". These are not protected by copyright law. The thing that is protected is the expression of the idea - in the case of software, the expression is the code itself. Unless the code itself has been copied, there's no risk to Linux of a copyright issue (and in some cases not even then).
Do most of us geeky smart asses ingest a higher proportion of meat in our diets than the average dummy?
I've always thought it important to ingest large quantities of meat (particularly red meat) to maintain brainpower. This approach came mainly from seeing how stupid and illogical vegetarians seem to be.
You can't become a spammer without being a sociopath. Literally. Spammers lack the capacity to control their own actions by reference to the consequences to others. This is exactly the same flaw that afflicts manifesting sociopaths.
If the SCO claims were valid, then Red Hat's business would basically be over. They wouldn't be able to distribute Linux without violating the GPL.
In the face of SCO's continuing FUD without providing any substance, Red Hat had no choice whatsoever in this matter. They either file suit to either force SCO to disclose the relevant information, or they go quietly into the night.
It's satisfying to see that their claims
are basically the ones I said
(2,
3
)
could be brought against SCO
Do you know who was the corporate counsel for the company? If so, have your lawyer contact them.
This is not correct. First, the liquidator is the one that would have done anything that need to be done. That's your first port of call.
If the liquidator didn't sell it, then what happened to the property depends on what country (and state, in some cases) the company was incorporated in. Typically the undistributed property of a delisted company vests in the securities regulator or government for the company's incorporation jurisdiction.
Even if the liquidator didn't sell the IP, they should be able to tell you who gets it by default. There shouldn't be a need for a lawyer, and let's face it, who wants to give money to a land shark if it's something you can do yourself.
Thus there is almost certainly an owner somewhere - you need to contact them and see if you can buy the rights, which you will probably be able to do if they're held by a regulator who has no other use for them (especially if you have the only copy of the code that could be used to make use of them).
Typically in looking at your brokerage account the position would be listed as -X shares of the stock. The actual shares in question are "borrowed" from other accounts temporarily.
I find myself wondering how this can be legal. Yes, I know it happens this way all the time, but here's the problem - the stock broker is a fiduciary of their client whose account the shares are borrowed from. A fiduciary is not permitted to profit from the assets and rights of the person they owe the duty to without the permission of that person. If they do profit, the person to whom they owe the duty can claim the profits. This would mean at a minimum that the broker would lose out on their commissions.
However the short-seller is also aiming to profit from what they know must be a breach of the fiduciary duty, so they can also be made to disgorge profits.
So the question here is, why are short sellers and their brokers not sued into oblivion? Is it merely because they hide this borrowing activity from the customers whose shares they borrow?
Or are there people who own shares who figure letting them be sold short is a good idea? If so, surely such people should be insisting on a cut of the action if the short-seller wins?
.NET - IT departments are starting to realise what.NET is all about and fleeing in droves. A year ago you'd get them asking if you'd be supporting.NET and hoping the answer was "yes", now they're asking about.NET and hoping the answer is "no".
Could there be grounds for a class action suit here?
Yes. In fact there are two applicable classes.
The first class consists of anybody using Linux. They could, as a class, seek a declaration from the Court that (1) By using Linux, the users do not infringe on SCO's copyright; (2) By copying Linux, the users do not infringe on SCO's copyright; and (3) that they will not be liable for any actual infringement occurring before SCO identifies, precisely, the affected lines of code. Such a declaration would basically prevent SCO from taking any action against any user of Linux.
This could be dealt with on an expedited basis - much sooner than the SCO-IBM lawsuit comes to trial - on grounds of irreversible damage being caused by SCO.
The second class it one consisting of all businesses that sell and install Linux related services. That class could initiate a suit for injurious falsehood, unlawful interference with contractual relations, and unlawful interference with business. These could be launched against both SCO and against the directors of SCO personally.
So, if you can coordinate the community, and particularly Linux software and service businesses, you could deliver a major broadside to SCO and the trolls at their helm.
can the people who paid up turn around and sue and/or prosecute SCO for damages and/or fraud/extortion?
If you can establish that they knew they had no legitimate claim, or that they didn't care whether their claim was legitimate or not, you can sue for deceit. If SCO is bankrupt, you can sue the individuals making the claim for deceit (ie. Go after Darl personally).
When good spammers go bad? Isn't that kind of pretentious thinking there are good spammers?
Well everybody knows the only good spammer is a dead spammer. Now a dead spammer is basically a pile of meat. Meat is said to go bad when it starts to rot.
So the topic here is presumably about observations of leaving a dead spammer out in the sun for a few days and monitoring the decomposition of the spammer corpse.
f you can explain this point better, I could be a convert, but the only difference I have been able to see is that we don't want the contact from spammers, other than that, it is person (advertiser) to person (victim of spam.
You establish your mailbox for personal communication. That is, stuff that is specifically directed at you because of its specific relevance to you as an individual. Because spam is sent in bulk, it almost certainly has no relevance to the recipient. It is not a personal message.
If you want to send messages to large groups, that's what USENET's for. But if you're using email, you'd best be prepared to explain why you considered the message relevant to the individual as a person. This would require, at a minimum, knowing something relevant about the person you're sending the message to.
The historical convention, and one that makes sense, is that bulk requires explicit consent, but personal messages do not (there is implied consent for personal messages).
But to allow the public, with the exception of spammers, is like saying Lowes can have a no Home Depot employees allowed policy...
I'm getting really tired of this fundamentally fallacious argument continually cropping up. It assumes that spam is the same as person-to-person communications. It is clearly not. Indeed if it were in all respects indistinguishable, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
It is also clearly not true that just because some unwanted behaviour is possible, it is acceptable.
It is not a question of "who" is putting the mail in there. It is a question of the nature of the use, that nature being inconsistent with the purpose of setting up a mailbox.
Slashdot Mirror
It's changing though. We now have customers calling us and saying that they're throwing out Microsoft altogether and they want a Linux solution (we sell software targeted at big business) within weeks or a small number of months. It started as a trickle, but it's building rapidly. Very rapidly. It's kind of like spam was in the mid 90s. It's not a lot yet, but there's a definite pattern forming that's pointing to torrents a couple of years down the track.
Most vacuum cleaners suck and blow too, which is pretty good considering most people can't get their wives to do that.
You know how there's incompetent techs (actually a good proportion of SlashDot readers would find most techs incompetent)? Well the situation is no different in law. It scares the living shit out of me that some of my classmates who manage to just pass their subjects then go on to become practicing lawyers. Then again perhaps my perspective is influenced by the fact that my most common result in law subjects is top of the year with most of the balance being in the top two or three, but I don't want to be a leach, hence I have no intention of ever practicing. I do think that it should be a condition of practicing law that you publish the grades you receive in law school since most people can't tell the difference between a good lawyer and a bad one.
Now, the software industry likes to claim that "derivative work" means something different in to software industry, but it doesn't. That's one of the things the Altai case was about - the same rules that apply to other works also apply to software.
The real difference with software is that software companies tend to keep the primary work in which copyright substists (source code) secret. That doesn't make the law any different at all - in fact this secrecy is quite irrelevant to the issue of whether there is infringement of copyright.
Because of this penchant for secrecy, software companies like to claim they have certain rights they don't, and other people might be misled into believing that they have them, but that doesn't make them any more real.
Altai vs Computer Associates is a good starting point. Anything else that decides something related to software specific copyrights is likely to cite that, so if you search Lexis for that you should find everything you'll ever need.
It's not necessary to use solely "suppositions, models and projections" to measure past temperature. There are forensic sources of evidence as to these matters. One of the better known forensic sources of evidence as to temperature comes from examining the cross-sections of trees, but as I recall there are lots of others.
We don't know "for sure" that the Earth orbits the Sun either - it could be an elaborate illusion we don't quite understand yet.
The best available evidence points to the fact that the Earth is warming now. Sure, it could be one huge coincidence that there's been a dramatic exponential increase since the start of the industrial revolution, but absent compelling evidence to the contrary, the best hypothesis available would suggest a possible link.
Now, having established a possible link, theories have been advanced to explain that link. There are clearly known properties in gasses that are released by industrial processes that have the potential to cause such an increase. The theories clearly demonstrate viability. They also support the observation of a dramatic increase since the start of the industrial revolution.
Competing theories revolving around millenia long cycles tend not to explain sudden increases measured in the past 150 years, and even less so the even sharper increases measured in the past decade. You see, the theory doesn't need to just explain warming. It needs to explain the rate. It also needs to explain significant temporal pattern changes.
The best explanation we have for the current rate and its timing is that it is caused by industrial emissions. Until there is an alternative explanation that is superiour - that is, supported by better evidence and/or better explains the facts, then the one that's the best available at this time is the one we have to go with at this time.
Now, setting aside the issue of what the cause of global warming is, we still have the fact that there is significant warming in the last 150 years. Few people seriously dispute that. A change in climate certainly has a high probability of changing which species are viable, and to what extent. It's not so much a "do it for the environment" thing - the concern is not for furry animals or plants, the concern is that climate change will reduce the planet's carrying capacity for humans.
Now perhaps some thinning of the ranks would be good, but that tends not to be the prevailing view. If we want to maintain carrying capacity, and this means that according to the best knowlege we have now, maintaining climatic conditions, we need to ensure that we're at a bare minimum not doing things that appear to be causing climate change, according to the best available theories. In fact the contrary position suggests we need to do more, not less, because we would not have demonstrated a need to control the environment, and we need to be able to do so.
We don't ignore theories because they're not 100.00000% accurate - except in certain parts of the bible belt. We go with what is supportably the most accurate we have. Yes, global warming could be a natural cycle millenia long. It could also be the product of a conspiracy of hyper-intelligent dolphins that live at ocean depths we can't explore yet. You don't go with the less scientifically supportable theory because it might be right - you go with the more scientifically supportable theory until such time as it's shown to be wrong or some other theory supercedes it. It makes little sense to bitch about that - by all means do research and see if you can come up with better explanations and better theories, but don't bitch about the fact that this other one is currently the best.
For the time being, global warming caused by industrial emissions is the best scientifically supportable theory available in this area, and it's the one that best explains the observations. This makes it the best basis for decision-making policy at this time. When you add the question of insurance into the equation - if global warming is from industrial admissions is an accurate model and we do nothing, we as a species could be in serious trouble - the best course of present action is put far beyond doubt.
In a very strict reading of the definition, ANY unix-style OS could be claimed to be a recast, transformed, or adapted verion of some earlier unix OS.
Not true. That general phrase follows a bunch of more specific ones in a list. When reading a statute, a general phrase following a list of more specific ones is given a scope as indicated by the specific ones. All the items in the list involve some modification or transformation of a literal copy of the original work. This is the scope of the more general term.
The cases are quite clear on where the boundaries of "derivative work" are, and what is protected by copyright. Just because Linux does "the same thing" as Unix "in the same way", does not make it a derivative work. The things that are the same are what in copyright terms are called the "ideas". These are not protected by copyright law. The thing that is protected is the expression of the idea - in the case of software, the expression is the code itself. Unless the code itself has been copied, there's no risk to Linux of a copyright issue (and in some cases not even then).
I've always thought it important to ingest large quantities of meat (particularly red meat) to maintain brainpower. This approach came mainly from seeing how stupid and illogical vegetarians seem to be.
And if 1 were not equal to 1...
You can't become a spammer without being a sociopath. Literally. Spammers lack the capacity to control their own actions by reference to the consequences to others. This is exactly the same flaw that afflicts manifesting sociopaths.
In the face of SCO's continuing FUD without providing any substance, Red Hat had no choice whatsoever in this matter. They either file suit to either force SCO to disclose the relevant information, or they go quietly into the night.
It's satisfying to see that their claims are basically the ones I said (2, 3 ) could be brought against SCO
Correction: s/delisted/deregistered/g
Do you know who was the corporate counsel for the company? If so, have your lawyer contact them.
This is not correct. First, the liquidator is the one that would have done anything that need to be done. That's your first port of call.
If the liquidator didn't sell it, then what happened to the property depends on what country (and state, in some cases) the company was incorporated in. Typically the undistributed property of a delisted company vests in the securities regulator or government for the company's incorporation jurisdiction.
Even if the liquidator didn't sell the IP, they should be able to tell you who gets it by default. There shouldn't be a need for a lawyer, and let's face it, who wants to give money to a land shark if it's something you can do yourself.
Thus there is almost certainly an owner somewhere - you need to contact them and see if you can buy the rights, which you will probably be able to do if they're held by a regulator who has no other use for them (especially if you have the only copy of the code that could be used to make use of them).
Typically in looking at your brokerage account the position would be listed as -X shares of the stock. The actual shares in question are "borrowed" from other accounts temporarily.
I find myself wondering how this can be legal. Yes, I know it happens this way all the time, but here's the problem - the stock broker is a fiduciary of their client whose account the shares are borrowed from. A fiduciary is not permitted to profit from the assets and rights of the person they owe the duty to without the permission of that person. If they do profit, the person to whom they owe the duty can claim the profits. This would mean at a minimum that the broker would lose out on their commissions.
However the short-seller is also aiming to profit from what they know must be a breach of the fiduciary duty, so they can also be made to disgorge profits.
So the question here is, why are short sellers and their brokers not sued into oblivion? Is it merely because they hide this borrowing activity from the customers whose shares they borrow?
Or are there people who own shares who figure letting them be sold short is a good idea? If so, surely such people should be insisting on a cut of the action if the short-seller wins?
.NET - IT departments are starting to realise what .NET is all about and fleeing in droves. A year ago you'd get them asking if you'd be supporting .NET and hoping the answer was "yes", now they're asking about .NET and hoping the answer is "no".
SCO UNIX is the equivalent of a..... No, a bicycle is too kind of a description
SCO is the equivalent of a 250 tonne ore truck, powered by a lawnmower engine.
Could there be grounds for a class action suit here?
Yes. In fact there are two applicable classes.
The first class consists of anybody using Linux. They could, as a class, seek a declaration from the Court that (1) By using Linux, the users do not infringe on SCO's copyright; (2) By copying Linux, the users do not infringe on SCO's copyright; and (3) that they will not be liable for any actual infringement occurring before SCO identifies, precisely, the affected lines of code. Such a declaration would basically prevent SCO from taking any action against any user of Linux.
This could be dealt with on an expedited basis - much sooner than the SCO-IBM lawsuit comes to trial - on grounds of irreversible damage being caused by SCO.
The second class it one consisting of all businesses that sell and install Linux related services. That class could initiate a suit for injurious falsehood, unlawful interference with contractual relations, and unlawful interference with business. These could be launched against both SCO and against the directors of SCO personally.
So, if you can coordinate the community, and particularly Linux software and service businesses, you could deliver a major broadside to SCO and the trolls at their helm.
can the people who paid up turn around and sue and/or prosecute SCO for damages and/or fraud/extortion?
If you can establish that they knew they had no legitimate claim, or that they didn't care whether their claim was legitimate or not, you can sue for deceit. If SCO is bankrupt, you can sue the individuals making the claim for deceit (ie. Go after Darl personally).
When good spammers go bad? Isn't that kind of pretentious thinking there are good spammers?
Well everybody knows the only good spammer is a dead spammer. Now a dead spammer is basically a pile of meat. Meat is said to go bad when it starts to rot.
So the topic here is presumably about observations of leaving a dead spammer out in the sun for a few days and monitoring the decomposition of the spammer corpse.
The most stolen item in Britain is Razorblades... And I would have thought it was toothpaste
Well we all sure as hell knew it wouldn't be soap.
Thats a lot of work. Wouldn't it be easier just to arrest you and sort it all out?
Easier, perhaps, but the person arrested would be guaranteed a successful action for false imprisonment.
am I deemed to have bought them when I pick them up, or when I go through the checkout?
When the cashier puts the price into the register.
Go to razor-blade shelf. Pick up razor blades with RFID tag. Hide elsewhere in store. Repeat.
f you can explain this point better, I could be a convert, but the only difference I have been able to see is that we don't want the contact from spammers, other than that, it is person (advertiser) to person (victim of spam.
You establish your mailbox for personal communication. That is, stuff that is specifically directed at you because of its specific relevance to you as an individual. Because spam is sent in bulk, it almost certainly has no relevance to the recipient. It is not a personal message.
If you want to send messages to large groups, that's what USENET's for. But if you're using email, you'd best be prepared to explain why you considered the message relevant to the individual as a person. This would require, at a minimum, knowing something relevant about the person you're sending the message to.
The historical convention, and one that makes sense, is that bulk requires explicit consent, but personal messages do not (there is implied consent for personal messages).
But to allow the public, with the exception of spammers, is like saying Lowes can have a no Home Depot employees allowed policy...
I'm getting really tired of this fundamentally fallacious argument continually cropping up. It assumes that spam is the same as person-to-person communications. It is clearly not. Indeed if it were in all respects indistinguishable, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
It is also clearly not true that just because some unwanted behaviour is possible, it is acceptable.
It is not a question of "who" is putting the mail in there. It is a question of the nature of the use, that nature being inconsistent with the purpose of setting up a mailbox.
True. But courts have so far agreed with me.
They have not, since they have never had to consider it as there was never a case brought in which it was necessary to consider it.