It takes time to file claims, I'm sure IBM has been working on putting together a countersuit since day one, and unlike Darl, Big Blue won't make rash comments about things which aren't relevant or provable. I'm sure the reason there is no mention of the "Buy Linux from us" FUD is because it only happene da few days ago, not long enough to add it to the list before filing.
What kind of name is Darl, anyway? I mean, honestly, it looks like a friggin' typo for Daryl or something...
Anyway, I'm suprised that (SCO isn't suprised that I'm suprised that) IBM is going to claim SCO fscked themselves by distributing under the GPL, as a court is obviously going to find that there isn't a way SCO could have known right away. Does every company rigorously scan all their in-house code against all GPL'd code before deciding on distributing it? No, I doubt it, that's costly and should be unessisary. Perhaps however, that's the only real response IBM can give, because if there really is SCOde in the kernel, IBM would have to be the guilty one. Even in this situation, however, RedHat (or someone...Linus?) can sue the everloving crap out of SCO for charging for Linux, when in reality they no longer own their trade secret.
The way it works is: When a trade secret gets out, it's void. Whoever let it out owes you damages, but that's where the buck stops.
The FSF now considers the APSL to be a free software license with three major practical problems, reminiscent of the NPL:
It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with other files which may be entirely proprietary.
It is unfair, since it requires you to give Apple rights to your changes which Apple will not give you for its code.
It is incompatible with the GPL.
-------------
#1 wont' ever be resolved: Apple needs this to be able to link MacOS X to Darwin. #2 No one besides Apple is going to use the Apple Public Source license, so who cares. You're contributing to an Apple product, love it or start your own on SourceForge. #3 As you stated.
Interesting, isn't it, how it's called the "Apple Public Source" license and not the "Apple Open Source" license? It's not an open license in the sense of free as in beer, it's open as in the sense of "Help us fix bugs and add features, it's a win-win."
I'm talking about each of the components in the car, for example each speaker and the 100 disc changer in the trunk having a wireless (802.11/BlueTooth/Whatever) connection from the reciever. It'll never work, how will you power each component? AAs? Although...
I know, let's take another two innovative inventions and put them together in an obvious way, then we can all be rich!
I think I'll patent wireless car audio. Less messy hookup, easily swap your system out when it breaks/gets old, etc. Aside from some probable technical difficulties, once this comes out I'll be rich. I'll just sue.
Seriously, could this mean that I can't get mail on my cel phone anymore? Or is this specifically limited to devices designed to provide such a feature exclusively? (And wouldn't SMS pagers infringe, since that is a form of wireless electronic mesaging?)
But then there are the infamous 80 lines that are allegedly in SCO's SYSV code and also Linux. These apparently are independent of the 'derivative work'code.
...And I'll bet those 80 lines where ripped off from BSD before that whole fiasco with Berkeley and AT&T...
5. Isn't this really a scheme to get money out of other Linux companies?
It is the responsibility of SCO to its customers, shareholders and employees that we protect the software licenses, patents and copyrights that are maintained as part of our software. If we did not try to formalize the process for licensing our technology, we would be doing a great disservice to all of our stakeholders.
Sometimes, the best place to hide is right out in the open, I guess...
BK: No. There was a time when they were incredible fun to work with, and I really enjoyed programming and getting the machine to do things, but it was never my whole life. And modern systems are so messy and complicated that they are more frustrating than rewarding most of the time. It's still pretty easy to get completely wrapped up in trying to write a program, though; that will always be fun.
That's why I'm not a programmer anymore. That and the schoolyard drama that goes on in the industry now. (And no, I'm not talking about in/. posts!)
Slashdot Mirror
They are so fsck'd.
Until someone "creates" items though some hack, just like every other MMORPG, and sells them off for real money.
i've heard this too, but I can't find it while casually browsing. Can anyone show me a link?
It takes time to file claims, I'm sure IBM has been working on putting together a countersuit since day one, and unlike Darl, Big Blue won't make rash comments about things which aren't relevant or provable. I'm sure the reason there is no mention of the "Buy Linux from us" FUD is because it only happene da few days ago, not long enough to add it to the list before filing.
What kind of name is Darl, anyway? I mean, honestly, it looks like a friggin' typo for Daryl or something...
Anyway, I'm suprised that (SCO isn't suprised that I'm suprised that) IBM is going to claim SCO fscked themselves by distributing under the GPL, as a court is obviously going to find that there isn't a way SCO could have known right away. Does every company rigorously scan all their in-house code against all GPL'd code before deciding on distributing it? No, I doubt it, that's costly and should be unessisary. Perhaps however, that's the only real response IBM can give, because if there really is SCOde in the kernel, IBM would have to be the guilty one. Even in this situation, however, RedHat (or someone...Linus?) can sue the everloving crap out of SCO for charging for Linux, when in reality they no longer own their trade secret.
The way it works is: When a trade secret gets out, it's void. Whoever let it out owes you damages, but that's where the buck stops.
This is gonna get really interesting now...
#2 No one besides Apple is going to use the Apple Public Source license, so who cares. You're contributing to an Apple product, love it or start your own on SourceForge.
#3 As you stated.
Interesting, isn't it, how it's called the "Apple Public Source" license and not the "Apple Open Source" license? It's not an open license in the sense of free as in beer, it's open as in the sense of "Help us fix bugs and add features, it's a win-win."
PS: Isn't it GNU/GPL?
...And with every BSOD and smoking mobo I see, I am reminded of exactly how witty those x86 fatties can get....
...but you saw what both Bush administrations have done to Iraq...SCO is not playing it smart.
LOL. +1 Virtual Funny for you
I'm talking about each of the components in the car, for example each speaker and the 100 disc changer in the trunk having a wireless (802.11/BlueTooth/Whatever) connection from the reciever. It'll never work, how will you power each component? AAs? Although...
<BRAINSTORM>
Sealand is not part of the UK, that's out of their juristiction.
I know, let's take another two innovative inventions and put them together in an obvious way, then we can all be rich!
I think I'll patent wireless car audio. Less messy hookup, easily swap your system out when it breaks/gets old, etc. Aside from some probable technical difficulties, once this comes out I'll be rich. I'll just sue.
Seriously, could this mean that I can't get mail on my cel phone anymore? Or is this specifically limited to devices designed to provide such a feature exclusively? (And wouldn't SMS pagers infringe, since that is a form of wireless electronic mesaging?)
Bite my shiny metal
It's GNU/Stallman, dammit!
Oddly enough, that made me laugh really, really hard.
Ultimate interactive pr0n.
If you leave your house unlocked and while you're not home, someone sells crack from your living room, are you at fault?
Because it's a 2-way street and both ways end up at the bank.
Apple gives large educational discounts. Your school probably saved a bunch.
I can't find it, URL please?
No, never.
Hence, the point reiterated.
...Exactly.