By your definition, most every form of human communication would also qualify as FUD - especially those that involve unsurety.
Items are accepted to be FUD when they are intended to apply negative emotions to force a political victory. That's not the case here. This is a stern, informative announcement, and the passage you hilight is intended to state a course of action and to indicate thier own inability to make a concrete decision right now, not to frighten users and prevent free commerce or activity.
They will have a further announcement. They do not yet know if that will be a pro or con decision. They give a time frame. You are reading more than was written into this statement.
It does not spread anything except information. The announcement states that
a) SCO has attacked Free Software b) Many people have asked that the FSF remove SCO support c) The FSF has not chosen to do so yet, out of respect for GCC's users.
The point is that they're not just some random clueless jackasses.
They're jackasses that understand what they are doing and have chosed to attack those that helped them.
The charge is not profiting from Free Software - I think everyone wants more of that. The charge is poisoning the well from which we all drink, including themselves.
SCO says IBM took some of its source code and put it in Linux.
No. SCO claims that IBM took some code that was written by a company IBM bought and copied it into AIX. They later also copied it into Linux.
SCO claims that, by copying it into AIX (A UNIX derivative) first, it has magically become a derivative work of UNIX itself. This is obviously a unique interpretation of "derivative work."
SCO does not lay claim upon the code itself, though - only where and how it may be used.
I suspect it's probably easier to get unconstitutional censorship laws passed when only a few crackpots and thier pet sheep vote, as opposed to an actual educated, voting public.
If we don't find a missing link, then all that means is that no missing link has been found yet. In other words, no concrete proof exists, although most people who have analyzed the data expect there to be one. Unfortunately, the evidence may have been destroyed.
No, it's probably not an indication whatever you were alluding to, be it aliens, a diety, or a glitch in the matrix.
It's all relative. It's more clever than making a sound like an angry elephant or a machine gun.
Interesting to see Sun's VP missing the point...
on
LWCE Wrapup
·
· Score: 1
And doing it right in public, so everyone knows he's clueless.
"The thing I worry about most with the open source community is the sentiment that open source is somehow different. It isn't," he said.
They like linux because somehow, the gods smiled upon it, and somehow - by magic - it's "better and it's cheaper". By adopting this attitude, you can see that they miss th eentire point - that Linux is cheaper and better because it's free, not in spite of it.
They show that if success in the IT world ever comes down to who can deploy, support and enhance Linux the best, IBM will wind up eating thier lunch, because they at least know when to keep thier mouths shut, and also know when to defer to an actual Linux company when necessary. Jonathan Schwartz may be disapointed to discover fairly soon that not only open source development is "different." The entire industry is "different" and Sun's not keeping up.
The globalization of IT is forcing the best of breed to appear from the U.S. technology sector, and I suspect it's similar in Europe. Those of us who are surviving have to show adaptability, flexibility, and a to-the-bone cost effectiveness that precludes both proprietary technologies and goofy language suites that are only popular because your CEO wants to beat another CEO and spent billions of dollars marketing them.
I've come to some realizations lately, and it's made me a better developer and admin. If I can't fix it, I won't use it -- everything breaks, and it costs too much to route around a piece of broken black box. If it can't be used to serve multiple purposes, I can't use it -- it costs too much to learn one-shot technologies, and even more to try and force generalization from them.
The freedom that open source provides makes it possible for me to adopt these two important stances, while providing customer satisfaction, the very best business value, and lower prices than my competition.
Sun does not live in that world of "better, cheaper, faster" and as long as thier VPs continue to announce they don't get it, I'll look for my tech elsewhere.
The inventor is not only concerned with environmental concerns, but also societal concerns - traffic and noise, as well as pollution.
It is much more efficient to control, filter and dispose of emmissions from a power plant than from a million independant cars.
These cars are smaller.
These cars are more maneuverable.
These cars are quieter. Since you don't know (and didn't investigate) how long an electric motor, or a battery will last, I'm not sure why you bring them up as arguments. The tire concern exists with or without the savings from the Tango, so , again - why did you bring it up?
It's not a panacea, but it's a lot better than the current situation - I'd rather see someone using a Tango than driving thier Expedition out to get some Taco Bell.
They can only use, sell and distribute it within the context of UNIX - the license allows it to be distributed as part of AIX, Unixware, or one of Sun's offerings - anyone with a UNIX license. In the event that one of those organizations used the code, IBM would recieve money, and not SCO. SCO does not claim ownership, but instead controls distribution.
But, anyway... I'm sick of agreeing back and forth, and it seems you're in the mood to continue this, so why don't I just allow you to be the winner here.
I hereby resign as an amateur license interpreter, and declare you the grand poobah. Hip, Hip hooray.
The distinction is that in this case, IBM's redistribution rights are being controlled - not thier usage, resale or ownership rights. It's a subtle point, but I think an important one, because from appearances, this happened exactly the way SCO said it did: IBM (as Sequent) did copy the same code into AIX and Linux (and OS/2, but did not release the source).
The only thing the lawsuit will decide is if copying code into UNIX turns it into a derivative of UNIX. Logically, anyone can see it does not - a derivative must derive from the original. But SCO is claiming that IBM may not copy code that IBM owns into other operating systems - NOT that any code that IBM copies into UNIX is owned by SCO.
That's why the case is a little scary - not because SCO's case has any merit: Because a court must be made to understand these very difficult subtleties, and SCO's lawyer is probably very, very good at muddying water.
We need to make this very clear, when discussing it with our clients, bosses, and friends - everyone needs to know that yes, IBM did copy the same code as they have in AIX. This is fine, though because a) They own it, and b) It is not derived from UNIX.
Now SCO comes along and says that IBM has no right to incorporate it into Linux because it belongs to SCO. The fact that the original technology licensed to IBM has got nothing like XYZ scheduling in it doesn't matter to SCO; as far as they're concerned, since IBM incorporated it into AIX first, the technology belongs to SCO.
SCO does not lay claim to the Sequent code. IBM owns that free and clear. SCO's opinion is that because it was first integrated to AIX, it is a derivative work of UNIX, and can not be released to anyone without a UNIX liscense. But SCO does not lay claim to it, since they did not write it.
Some speculate that Sequent covered these bases quite well. In a white paper released before code was developed, they described the generic algorithms and functionality outside of any actual implementation. The UNIX port can be said to come from that whitepaper, which indicates it is not derivative of anything.
Wouldn't you consider the loss of 25 irreplaceable artifacts from the ancient world "a lot"?
It is good that the bulk of them were recovered (or never stolen in the first place), but I assume if the Smithstonian "lost" 25 artifacts a year, they would consider it a pretty significant blow.
People made fun of the logo, the company, the products, and it hurt.
This is an indication that you should change your logo, your company, and your product. Being sad because your potential customers won't buy your product is an inappropriate business plan.
There is no revenge to be given here, because SCO/caldera was not wronged. They just didn't know how to market to thier audience, and did not show proper respect to the hordes of developers they tried to benefit from. They destroyed themselves, and now litigation is the only thing they can consider a viable business plan.
I, personally, think that IBM is going to release a monstrous legal team and savage them, once all the proper ducks are in a row. A massive countrsuit for retraint of trade is probably pending, and I hope a hostile (and unprofitable) takeover is being planned.
All IBM (and the Linux community) needs is the lines of source that SCO feels infringe - the merits of the case will be resolved within a day, and any infringement (if any really exists) will be removed by the end of the week. I'm reasonably sure I could replace 80 lines myself the first day.
I't's probably not true, but It's definitely not intentional. If SCO wants.003% of the code out of the kernel, tell us what code it is, let us judge, and remove it if necessary, so we can end the infringement, imagined or real.
Keeping it a secret is both inappropriate and intented to force thier acquisition via litigation, not to solve any IP issues.
If you're using imap, then you should use an imap scrubber, like imapassasin, in which case it doesn't matter what mail client you use.
If you're using webmail , I think it will have to be filtered at the server - I don't know how you could actually tie in with a web app, unless it has an api to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
Or maybe they just forgot to patch those boxes...
By your definition, most every form of human communication would also qualify as FUD - especially those that involve unsurety.
Items are accepted to be FUD when they are intended to apply negative emotions to force a political victory. That's not the case here. This is a stern, informative announcement, and the passage you hilight is intended to state a course of action and to indicate thier own inability to make a concrete decision right now, not to frighten users and prevent free commerce or activity.
They will have a further announcement. They do not yet know if that will be a pro or con decision. They give a time frame. You are reading more than was written into this statement.
It does not spread anything except information. The announcement states that
a) SCO has attacked Free Software
b) Many people have asked that the FSF remove SCO support
c) The FSF has not chosen to do so yet, out of respect for GCC's users.
That's not FUD.
The point is that they're not just some random clueless jackasses.
They're jackasses that understand what they are doing and have chosed to attack those that helped them.
The charge is not profiting from Free Software - I think everyone wants more of that. The charge is poisoning the well from which we all drink, including themselves.
No. SCO claims that IBM took some code that was written by a company IBM bought and copied it into AIX. They later also copied it into Linux.
SCO claims that, by copying it into AIX (A UNIX derivative) first, it has magically become a derivative work of UNIX itself. This is obviously a unique interpretation of "derivative work."
SCO does not lay claim upon the code itself, though - only where and how it may be used.
Good idea, but I wonder how much those cards would go for on ebay. It'd be a good way to redistribute wealth down to the homeless, though.
I suspect it's probably easier to get unconstitutional censorship laws passed when only a few crackpots and thier pet sheep vote, as opposed to an actual educated, voting public.
That's what Darl looks like? What a greasy hump.
If we don't find a missing link, then all that means is that no missing link has been found yet. In other words, no concrete proof exists, although most people who have analyzed the data expect there to be one. Unfortunately, the evidence may have been destroyed.
No, it's probably not an indication whatever you were alluding to, be it aliens, a diety, or a glitch in the matrix.
It's all relative. It's more clever than making a sound like an angry elephant or a machine gun.
And doing it right in public, so everyone knows he's clueless.
"The thing I worry about most with the open source community is the sentiment that open source is somehow different. It isn't," he said.
They like linux because somehow, the gods smiled upon it, and somehow - by magic - it's "better and it's cheaper". By adopting this attitude, you can see that they miss th eentire point - that Linux is cheaper and better because it's free, not in spite of it.
They show that if success in the IT world ever comes down to who can deploy, support and enhance Linux the best, IBM will wind up eating thier lunch, because they at least know when to keep thier mouths shut, and also know when to defer to an actual Linux company when necessary. Jonathan Schwartz may be disapointed to discover fairly soon that not only open source development is "different." The entire industry is "different" and Sun's not keeping up.
The globalization of IT is forcing the best of breed to appear from the U.S. technology sector, and I suspect it's similar in Europe. Those of us who are surviving have to show adaptability, flexibility, and a to-the-bone cost effectiveness that precludes both proprietary technologies and goofy language suites that are only popular because your CEO wants to beat another CEO and spent billions of dollars marketing them.
I've come to some realizations lately, and it's made me a better developer and admin. If I can't fix it, I won't use it -- everything breaks, and it costs too much to route around a piece of broken black box. If it can't be used to serve multiple purposes, I can't use it -- it costs too much to learn one-shot technologies, and even more to try and force generalization from them.
The freedom that open source provides makes it possible for me to adopt these two important stances, while providing customer satisfaction, the very best business value, and lower prices than my competition.
Sun does not live in that world of "better, cheaper, faster" and as long as thier VPs continue to announce they don't get it, I'll look for my tech elsewhere.
It is much more efficient to control, filter and dispose of emmissions from a power plant than from a million independant cars.
These cars are smaller.
These cars are more maneuverable.
These cars are quieter.
Since you don't know (and didn't investigate) how long an electric motor, or a battery will last, I'm not sure why you bring them up as arguments. The tire concern exists with or without the savings from the Tango, so , again - why did you bring it up?
It's not a panacea, but it's a lot better than the current situation - I'd rather see someone using a Tango than driving thier Expedition out to get some Taco Bell.
I believe this is SMIL's job.
Nor that time either, apparently.
I was with you until that third paragraph...
buy a bottle of Dr Pepper, drink it,
Dr. Pepper? Ewww.
then use it to fetch water
Dr. Pepper Water? That's just yuck.
They can only use, sell and distribute it within the context of UNIX - the license allows it to be distributed as part of AIX, Unixware, or one of Sun's offerings - anyone with a UNIX license. In the event that one of those organizations used the code, IBM would recieve money, and not SCO. SCO does not claim ownership, but instead controls distribution.
... I'm sick of agreeing back and forth, and it seems you're in the mood to continue this, so why don't I just allow you to be the winner here.
But, anyway
I hereby resign as an amateur license interpreter, and declare you the grand poobah. Hip, Hip hooray.
The distinction is that in this case, IBM's redistribution rights are being controlled - not thier usage, resale or ownership rights. It's a subtle point, but I think an important one, because from appearances, this happened exactly the way SCO said it did: IBM (as Sequent) did copy the same code into AIX and Linux (and OS/2, but did not release the source).
The only thing the lawsuit will decide is if copying code into UNIX turns it into a derivative of UNIX. Logically, anyone can see it does not - a derivative must derive from the original. But SCO is claiming that IBM may not copy code that IBM owns into other operating systems - NOT that any code that IBM copies into UNIX is owned by SCO.
That's why the case is a little scary - not because SCO's case has any merit: Because a court must be made to understand these very difficult subtleties, and SCO's lawyer is probably very, very good at muddying water.
We need to make this very clear, when discussing it with our clients, bosses, and friends - everyone needs to know that yes, IBM did copy the same code as they have in AIX. This is fine, though because a) They own it, and b) It is not derived from UNIX.
SCO does not lay claim to the Sequent code. IBM owns that free and clear. SCO's opinion is that because it was first integrated to AIX, it is a derivative work of UNIX, and can not be released to anyone without a UNIX liscense. But SCO does not lay claim to it, since they did not write it.
Some speculate that Sequent covered these bases quite well. In a white paper released before code was developed, they described the generic algorithms and functionality outside of any actual implementation. The UNIX port can be said to come from that whitepaper, which indicates it is not derivative of anything.
How many hammers are in a box?
I'm really not trying to be argumentative, but...
Wouldn't you consider the loss of 25 irreplaceable artifacts from the ancient world "a lot"?
It is good that the bulk of them were recovered (or never stolen in the first place), but I assume if the Smithstonian "lost" 25 artifacts a year, they would consider it a pretty significant blow.
I didn't think he was criticizing to the U.S. here - I think he was referring to the looters.
This is an indication that you should change your logo, your company, and your product. Being sad because your potential customers won't buy your product is an inappropriate business plan.
There is no revenge to be given here, because SCO/caldera was not wronged. They just didn't know how to market to thier audience, and did not show proper respect to the hordes of developers they tried to benefit from. They destroyed themselves, and now litigation is the only thing they can consider a viable business plan.
I, personally, think that IBM is going to release a monstrous legal team and savage them, once all the proper ducks are in a row. A massive countrsuit for retraint of trade is probably pending, and I hope a hostile (and unprofitable) takeover is being planned.
All IBM (and the Linux community) needs is the lines of source that SCO feels infringe - the merits of the case will be resolved within a day, and any infringement (if any really exists) will be removed by the end of the week. I'm reasonably sure I could replace 80 lines myself the first day.
I't's probably not true, but It's definitely not intentional. If SCO wants .003% of the code out of the kernel, tell us what code it is, let us judge, and remove it if necessary, so we can end the infringement, imagined or real.
Keeping it a secret is both inappropriate and intented to force thier acquisition via litigation, not to solve any IP issues.
You may be confusing "simpler" with "easier."
Today's computers and languages make it easier on the developer, because more functionality was included off the shelf by the designer.
I think your TRS-80 was probably a lot simpler to do those things that fall outside of the scope of "batteries included," though.
If you're using imap, then you should use an imap scrubber, like imapassasin, in which case it doesn't matter what mail client you use.
If you're using webmail , I think it will have to be filtered at the server - I don't know how you could actually tie in with a web app, unless it has an api to do so.
Does Outlook Express do webmail?