I agree with you about Debian striking the right balance. I disagree with your comment on RMS being over-the-top. I am a big fan of balance, but in issues like this I take the viewpoint that we need people with very strong ideals that push for a model that is opposite of what society is doing. Ideals are needed because you never reach an ideal but if you aim towards it you can strike a balance. But this is probably a symantics game.
Yes but Unix code in general has been used as examples in operating system programming. One of the big problems SCO has is Unix has been around so long that core features of it have been used in many other places than Unix.
So here are some links with some history and the battle SCO has is to prove that the code they see in Linux didn't come from these sources instead of IBM because if it came from these sources there is nothing SCO gets.
Quote from above: In 1992, Berkeley released its version of Unix and TCP/IP to the public as open-source code, and the combination quickly became the backbone of a network so vast that people started to call it, simply, "the Internet"
From that article note that Caldera did release Unix source code on some version and again SCO has to defend against the chance that code came from this source. And though it appears in protected System V it was also present in the release V7 and V32.
From thie quote on the above:OpenLinux is Caldera's self-hosted source code Linux distribution that conforms to commercial software release procedures. OpenLinux is based on the most current stable open source technologies, but subjected to rigorous testing procedures similar to those used for proprietary operating systems. How can SCO clain they did not see infected code go into Linux if they had standards that if up to proprietary operating systems would include a check as such.
Berkley Lab Notes My question here is if you follow the links on this page and understand the history of Unix and how it became freely released can anyone tell me what if anything was left propietary in Unix????? And maybe that is a question SCO should be answering.
And really this needs to be explored in detail because what does System V have that BSD does not and how does the BSDi vs USL case affect the Unix propietary code.
I know this is redundant it has all been said before but the Q&A is right. Without SCO showing the code in question and that code be compared to so much of the Unix system that legally leaked into the world they have no case.
I still think each kernel contributor should file in their local county, state, country etc. on SCO's breaking of the GPL and force SCO to fight IP cases all over the world. And the individual lug's could start similiar suits. Even if the suits get thrown out SCO will have to spend time and $ to get to that point and I believe most kernel contributors will have a strong case against SCO because their license is against the GPL and incorporates other people's ip though they say as a runtime binary license it does not I would like to see some debate on that or some resources where that is considered.
I borrow a persons at works ASP in a nutshell when I need it and my work has a shower for when you get that dirty feeling. But worse yet at home I have Delphi in a nutshell. Though I am began to use safari at O'reily and find it a good way to use reference in work scenario's. Get the reference you need for the project and smile as no one can laugh at your bookshelf they see behind you, only keep the linux, java, c, c++ and php books there leave asp, windows and Domino books hidden online.
SCO Announces Intellectual Property License for Linux Tuesday August 5, 12:43 pm ET SCO Provides Commercial Linux Users With Run-Time, Binary License to Run SCO's Intellectual Property in Linux
# LINDON, Utah, Aug. 5/PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX - News), the owner and licensor of the core UNIX(R) operating system source code, today announced the availability of the SCO Intellectual Property License for Linux(R). The run-time license permits the use of SCO's intellectual property, in binary form only, as contained in Linux distributions. By purchasing a SCO Intellectual Property License, customers avoid infringement of SCO's intellectual property rights in Linux 2.4 and Linux 2.5 kernels. Because the SCO license authorizes run-time use only, customers also comply with the General Public License, under which Linux is distributed.(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/19990421/SCOLO GO )
Now the article continue that it is a run time only license to comply with the GPL which is why I requested for comments on is this stretching the GPL asking to use the kernel in binary form only and not giving the option to remove offending code. Basically hijacking the kernel.
Yes you do on the same grounds SCO are saying you may be breaking the law with a linux kernel that has their ip, you now have a binary only license that contains non SCO ip protected by the GPL so you effectively bought a license that knowingly infringes on other people's ip and they can sue SCO for distributing it. As if you are liable or not you shouldn't have been liable for SCO's ip in the linux distribution you used so you never needed the license. You did not violate SCO's ip if it is in the linux kernel the perosn or persons whom supposedly placed the code there did, hence the suit against IBM and not against any Linux distribution and certainly not against any Linux users. You just wasted some money for something that was not your liability.
But neither here nor there now you are proof that SCO has taken money to license a product that they do not own I believe all kernel contributors can sue them for distribution of their IP against the terms of the GPL which protected their IP.
I repeat SCO does not have a right to license a binary only linux kernel if their IP is in it or not because they do not own the IP of the whole kernel only by their own admission part of it. Without supplying you the full source code upon request.
At least that is my take on it. Any GPL advocates or kernel contributors want to enlighten the debate further for this is a key issue I would like to see more clarification and discussion on.
IBM is a leader and has learned from a stagnation mistake in the past, I believe HP will learn either now or later that it needs to be flexible to keep such large architecture active in the market. I don't know what is the status of HP-Unix in the whole SCO thing????
And Intel is also a partner maybe we should write to HP and Intel and ask them nicely to not attend. Or face getting SCO dirt on their reputations. Or more bluntly boycott HP and Intel if they continue to work with SCO.
not true (at least from the Pete Rose perspective) the odds on the situation look like it would be in your favour. I would but a million on a bombing against Isareal in the next 10 years. Even at low odds it is most likely to be a payout. Except for the fact the Isralie security forces have the best intelligence in the world it would have happened by now. But anyway making a good bet based on the facts you have doesn't mean that you are related to the event. Would they investigate before or after the event though????
It is not April First, is it? This dogmatic idea that the market is the best model for almost anything in western society is creeping into subjects where the economics laws don't apply. The other side of this is would it be insider trading violation to bet a few mil that Jordan would be overthrown and then spend a few mil backing Jordanian rebels to overthrow Jordan increasing your turn. Capitalism is good, free markets are good, but for a market in statistical data to work the participants need to be involved in the creation of the data have complete intelligence on what they are betting or trading on and have some control of their goods. The subject matters broached do not seem to give them a full free market and not being a fully free market the data will be flawed.
It is not April the first or have I slept through atumn and winter this is just crazy.
Re:POSIX,LSB,BSD,heck, where is everything?
on
LSB & Posix Conflicts
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
You are probably more inclined to than look at this project than POSIX compliance different issue altogether though within the scope of LSB.
POSIX compliance is mainly in the API while the directory layout is a matter the LSB is approaching it is not part of POSIX specification except for some directories that must exist. Detail
CCTV is used very widely in the United Kingdom and it is fairly well posted on signage going into to stores. But even outside of shop fronts in the United Kingdom entire high towns can be under CCTV. The debate was fought awhile ago here in the United Kingdom and because of IRA threats and a constant belief in any culture that crime is always worse than it used to be, people generally supported the idea of CCTV and recorded imagery used for security and police use.
But RFID adds so many issues, the fact is the rfid is unique and can be followed back to your residence if you have the right scanners so you now have a photo an item if this information is gathered elsewhere you can follow individuals and some facial recognition elsewhere and tie down a persons where abouts with other rfid purchases that may be worn, in theory at least. How close is that theory from reality and should the philosophical and political issued be discuessed now or later. I personally believe if this debate is not stated more clearly and in a broder context of these few products we see on the market the later systems we fear will be in place before we have a voice to do anything about them. But who knows the future is unwritten.
take a Mach three from the shelf and set it down in a different isle everytime you are in the store if people do this in large quanitites it frustrates the snapshot game.
I agree with everything you said except for one point. I miss having radio stations that played a variety of music. It is hard to find new songs I download listen and buy if I like. I use it like the radio. I don't see that action as criminal because I am an active cd buyer. Though the way the law is written it is. I think my problem with the attack on mp3s is the control on the release of music by the record industries has become so strong that the variety of music is suffering on the airwaves, so to hear new things out of the pop mainstream you have to search a bit. Internet radio is great, followed by net downloading to find the version of the song you are looking for which is then followed by a hunt for the cd or a delete this rubbish option for me. I just can't see what is wrong with my use of it like that. Granted what is stated here is stealing but again the law is so rigid I am stealing under it. And I can not accept that not because I want free music but because I want the promise of captialism to offer consumers more choice to actually do that and offer me more choice while in the record industry it seems to be doing the opposite and offering my less.
Is this a material that Ford and Zaphod will marvel at as they cruise space parks looking for a ship to steal and will Marvin be riding a ship made of one into the sun.
I have read through the comments and over and over again see the question of why is AMI doing this and what does this do for the end user?
No answer given on this technology has answered that question for people. Until that is answered without untruths a large section of the community is not going to even look towards this technology.
So can you sum up what the benefits/drawbacks are of this tech for AMI and contrast and compare with the benefits/drawbacks for the users.
The net was based on trusting each machine you connected to. The problem isn't the protocols its the systems of giving trust to users. Right now it is pay me $ per momth get a connection. If you have enough money you can buy enough bandwidth and then do what you want with the trusts you are now connected to.
Plus you would be using a similiar amount of bandwidth at work. But a community like this could eat up their bandwidth just by slashdot agreeing to do the ads and everyone whom disagrees with the ads ignore them or even worse click on them so the advertiser pays slashdot they get tons of click stats but no sales of products. And it is not evil it is consumer choice using the market system to express the irrelevance of some market techniques.
I was actually commenting not on the difference between synths and piano's as instruments. I play both and understand a good synth's design but commenting on the durability of a 70 year old piano and a few year old synth. The cult of plastic in instruments does worry me and that was the horse of the different colour.
Well in the digital future you could have digital memory aids that are cameras and audio recorders in your home, place of employment and car. These devices you could than download the info from and organise the days events at your leisure. As your local and federal government will be doing such also.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you about Debian striking the right balance. I disagree with your comment on RMS being over-the-top. I am a big fan of balance, but in issues like this I take the viewpoint that we need people with very strong ideals that push for a model that is opposite of what society is doing. Ideals are needed because you never reach an ideal but if you aim towards it you can strike a balance.
But this is probably a symantics game.
No because you can see the code what would stop a company from dumping third party ip into their code and hiding it in binary only distributions????
Yes but Unix code in general has been used as examples in operating system programming. One of the big problems SCO has is Unix has been around so long that core features of it have been used in many other places than Unix.
So here are some links with some history and the battle SCO has is to prove that the code they see in Linux didn't come from these sources instead of IBM because if it came from these sources there is nothing SCO gets.
Public Money, Private Code
Quote from above: In 1992, Berkeley released its version of Unix and TCP/IP to the public as open-source code, and the combination quickly became the backbone of a network so vast that people started to call it, simply, "the Internet"
Why Caldera Decided to Release Unix
From that article note that Caldera did release Unix source code on some version and again SCO has to defend against the chance that code came from this source. And though it appears in protected System V it was also present in the release V7 and V32.
Introducing the Caldera OpenLinux Workstation
From thie quote on the above:OpenLinux is Caldera's self-hosted source code Linux distribution that conforms to commercial software release procedures. OpenLinux is based on the most current stable open source technologies, but subjected to rigorous testing procedures similar to those used for proprietary operating systems. How can SCO clain they did not see infected code go into Linux if they had standards that if up to proprietary operating systems would include a check as such.
Berkley Lab Notes
My question here is if you follow the links on this page and understand the history of Unix and how it became freely released can anyone tell me what if anything was left propietary in Unix?????
And maybe that is a question SCO should be answering.
And really this needs to be explored in detail because what does System V have that BSD does not and how does the BSDi vs USL case affect the Unix propietary code.
I know this is redundant it has all been said before but the Q&A is right. Without SCO showing the code in question and that code be compared to so much of the Unix system that legally leaked into the world they have no case.
I still think each kernel contributor should file in their local county, state, country etc. on SCO's breaking of the GPL and force SCO to fight IP cases all over the world. And the individual lug's could start similiar suits. Even if the suits get thrown out SCO will have to spend time and $ to get to that point and I believe most kernel contributors will have a strong case against SCO because their license is against the GPL and incorporates other people's ip though they say as a runtime binary license it does not I would like to see some debate on that or some resources where that is considered.
English in the above post was affected by a lager and a defect in my construct, my apologies.
I borrow a persons at works ASP in a nutshell when I need it and my work has a shower for when you get that dirty feeling. But worse yet at home I have Delphi in a nutshell. Though I am began to use safari at O'reily and find it a good way to use reference in work scenario's. Get the reference you need for the project and smile as no one can laugh at your bookshelf they see behind you, only keep the linux, java, c, c++ and php books there leave asp, windows and Domino books hidden online.
SCO Announces Intellectual Property License for Linux
/PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX - News), the owner and licensor of the core UNIX(R) operating system source code, today announced the availability of the SCO Intellectual Property License for Linux(R). The run-time license permits the use of SCO's intellectual property, in binary form only, as contained in Linux distributions. By purchasing a SCO Intellectual Property License, customers avoid infringement of SCO's intellectual property rights in Linux 2.4 and Linux 2.5 kernels. Because the SCO license authorizes run-time use only, customers also comply with the General Public License, under which Linux is distributed.(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/19990421/SCOLO GO )
Tuesday August 5, 12:43 pm ET
SCO Provides Commercial Linux Users With Run-Time, Binary License to Run SCO's Intellectual Property in Linux
# LINDON, Utah, Aug. 5
from Yahoo biz release
Now the article continue that it is a run time only license to comply with the GPL which is why I requested for comments on is this stretching the GPL asking to use the kernel in binary form only and not giving the option to remove offending code. Basically hijacking the kernel.
Yes you do on the same grounds SCO are saying you may be breaking the law with a linux kernel that has their ip, you now have a binary only license that contains non SCO ip protected by the GPL so you effectively bought a license that knowingly infringes on other people's ip and they can sue SCO for distributing it. As if you are liable or not you shouldn't have been liable for SCO's ip in the linux distribution you used so you never needed the license. You did not violate SCO's ip if it is in the linux kernel the perosn or persons whom supposedly placed the code there did, hence the suit against IBM and not against any Linux distribution and certainly not against any Linux users. You just wasted some money for something that was not your liability.
But neither here nor there now you are proof that SCO has taken money to license a product that they do not own I believe all kernel contributors can sue them for distribution of their IP against the terms of the GPL which protected their IP.
I repeat SCO does not have a right to license a binary only linux kernel if their IP is in it or not because they do not own the IP of the whole kernel only by their own admission part of it. Without supplying you the full source code upon request.
At least that is my take on it.
Any GPL advocates or kernel contributors want to enlighten the debate further for this is a key issue I would like to see more clarification and discussion on.
IBM is a leader and has learned from a stagnation mistake in the past, I believe HP will learn either now or later that it needs to be flexible to keep such large architecture active in the market. I don't know what is the status of HP-Unix in the whole SCO thing????
And Intel is also a partner maybe we should write to HP and Intel and ask them nicely to not attend. Or face getting SCO dirt on their reputations. Or more bluntly boycott HP and Intel if they continue to work with SCO.
Try this
article for some of the information on why not that many people in the know signed up to see the code and one who did and his report on it.
not true (at least from the Pete Rose perspective) the odds on the situation look like it would be in your favour. I would but a million on a bombing against Isareal in the next 10 years. Even at low odds it is most likely to be a payout. Except for the fact the Isralie security forces have the best intelligence in the world it would have happened by now. But anyway making a good bet based on the facts you have doesn't mean that you are related to the event. Would they investigate before or after the event though????
I rarely were pants(British) to the office. No one ever seems to notice here.
It is not April First, is it?
This dogmatic idea that the market is the best model for almost anything in western society is creeping into subjects where the economics laws don't apply. The other side of this is would it be insider trading violation to bet a few mil that Jordan would be overthrown and then spend a few mil backing Jordanian rebels to overthrow Jordan increasing your turn. Capitalism is good, free markets are good, but for a market in statistical data to work the participants need to be involved in the creation of the data have complete intelligence on what they are betting or trading on and have some control of their goods. The subject matters broached do not seem to give them a full free market and not being a fully free market the data will be flawed.
It is not April the first or have I slept through atumn and winter this is just crazy.
You are probably more inclined to than look at this project than POSIX compliance different issue altogether though within the scope of LSB.
POSIX compliance is mainly in the API
while the directory layout is a matter the LSB is approaching it is not part of POSIX specification except for some directories that must exist.
Detail
sorry meant to say high streets and figured the term would not translate back to america so I put in town forgetting to wipe out the high.
Oh well.
Such is life every now and again
CCTV is used very widely in the United Kingdom and it is fairly well posted on signage going into to stores. But even outside of shop fronts in the United Kingdom entire high towns can be under CCTV. The debate was fought awhile ago here in the United Kingdom and because of IRA threats and a constant belief in any culture that crime is always worse than it used to be, people generally supported the idea of CCTV and recorded imagery used for security and police use.
But RFID adds so many issues, the fact is the rfid is unique and can be followed back to your residence if you have the right scanners so you now have a photo an item if this information is gathered elsewhere you can follow individuals and some facial recognition elsewhere and tie down a persons where abouts with other rfid purchases that may be worn, in theory at least. How close is that theory from reality and should the philosophical and political issued be discuessed now or later. I personally believe if this debate is not stated more clearly and in a broder context of these few products we see on the market the later systems we fear will be in place before we have a voice to do anything about them. But who knows the future is unwritten.
take a Mach three from the shelf and set it down in a different isle everytime you are in the store if people do this in large quanitites it frustrates the snapshot game.
I agree with everything you said except for one point. I miss having radio stations that played a variety of music. It is hard to find new songs I download listen and buy if I like. I use it like the radio. I don't see that action as criminal because I am an active cd buyer. Though the way the law is written it is. I think my problem with the attack on mp3s is the control on the release of music by the record industries has become so strong that the variety of music is suffering on the airwaves, so to hear new things out of the pop mainstream you have to search a bit. Internet radio is great, followed by net downloading to find the version of the song you are looking for which is then followed by a hunt for the cd or a delete this rubbish option for me. I just can't see what is wrong with my use of it like that. Granted what is stated here is stealing but again the law is so rigid I am stealing under it. And I can not accept that not because I want free music but because I want the promise of captialism to offer consumers more choice to actually do that and offer me more choice while in the record industry it seems to be doing the opposite and offering my less.
Is this a material that Ford and Zaphod will marvel at as they cruise space parks looking for a ship to steal and will Marvin be riding a ship made of one into the sun.
Rest In Peace Mr. Adams
I have read through the comments and over and over again see the question of why is AMI doing this and what does this do for the end user?
No answer given on this technology has answered that question for people. Until that is answered without untruths a large section of the community is not going to even look towards this technology.
So can you sum up what the benefits/drawbacks are of this tech for AMI and contrast and compare with the benefits/drawbacks for the users.
So is TCP/IP but try replacing that even slowly.
The net was based on trusting each machine you connected to. The problem isn't the protocols its the systems of giving trust to users. Right now it is pay me $ per momth get a connection. If you have enough money you can buy enough bandwidth and then do what you want with the trusts you are now connected to.
Plus you would be using a similiar amount of bandwidth at work. But a community like this could eat up their bandwidth just by slashdot agreeing to do the ads and everyone whom disagrees with the ads ignore them or even worse click on them so the advertiser pays slashdot they get tons of click stats but no sales of products. And it is not evil it is consumer choice using the market system to express the irrelevance of some market techniques.
Who needs spelling and punctuation?
Well I do.
I was actually commenting not on the difference between synths and piano's as instruments. I play both and understand a good synth's design but commenting on the durability of a 70 year old piano and a few year old synth. The cult of plastic in instruments does worry me and that was the horse of the different colour.
Well in the digital future you could have digital memory aids that are cameras and audio recorders in your home, place of employment and car. These devices you could than download the info from and organise the days events at your leisure. As your local and federal government will be doing such also.