my understanding is the license you get says that SCO will not sue you over their IP in linux. And they won't. If they have no IP in linux, they still won't sue you.
And that shows they at least admit they might be selling thin air (that's the capitalist's dream!)
well, actually one would be correct, they don't have to pay, but they can't use Linux. Why, because the GPL forbids inserting royalty generating code. Any linux distro in which SCO code resides cannot be used, the GPL does not apply and copyright prohibits it's use. SCO can use their own IP, but not the GPLed IP of others.
SCO say copyright "trumps" the GPL, as if they conflict, when in reality, of course copyright "trumps", copyright is the right upon which the GPL is entirely based!
>All true, but that does not negate the truthfulness of the parent poster's statement. The population is dumbed down. How it happened is more complex than just video games - the educational system played its part as well, but people are less well educated today than 25 years ago and it shows in their amusements.
I don't think so. I think that's an apparent effect. We are all just becoming more in contact with the uneducated and ignorance of others, the uneducated have more voice in the media, the ignorant have more ways to discuss their ignorance [/me looks around quick].
-MY- dad an uncle used to have fun by throwing knives at each other.
but in this case they would be allowed to clean their kernel of this information. Therefore it will be trivial to find out where the nec. changes are. Unless SCO is -totally- bluffing, in which case Redhat would get it's declaration.
that is an excellent point about Redhat customers feeling served by this... it says that Redhat is willing to fight for itself and thereby the customer. It addresses the "indemnification" problem.
There is some chance that Redhat might win quickly because all they really need to win is to know where the offending code is exactly, decide it's it really offending, and if so, clean the kernel (by back patching to a previous non-offending module, most likely). It's likely SCO could be made to show their hand to Redhat within a few months and if they refuse, then Redhat might indeed win because the judge in that case might grant Redhat's desire to have their product declared legally free of SCO's IP claims as in this case SCO would not have provided any evidence to the contrary.
Either way Redhat gets quick resolution... they don't really need monetary damages, they have a problem here and now that is already hanging over them. Also Redhat will be mentioned more in SCO stories, which cements Redhat=Linux to a world growing more and more interested in linux.
OTOH, it would be a pain to have to ship every single compilation tool... maybe the GPL needs to be changed to handle this.
Consider one wrench in your theory though... what about GPLed code that uses a proprietary compiler... eg. all the projects that use the MS compiler for the Windows version. Can't ship that compiler, can you?!
While I don't think linksys has done this, I think this thread has hit something substantial. This IS a loophole.
I don't see what would stop someone from creating a new builtin keyword for C/C++ "modification()" and using it throughout their code. If the code is on the compiler side, it's safe.
your comment gave me a thought (eh, the magic of communicative language)... anyway.
What if someone modified the gcc to allow some new idiom/construct, creating a language C--... the modifications in the source rely on the new features. They release the binaries and the source, but no compiler and no documentation.
ok, this makes me sound like a hard line capitalist bastard rather than the gentle progressive philanthrope I really am... but businessmen don't think like that.
Statistically speaking businessmen are from the type that don't respect you because you are nice, or because you give them something for free... the have far more respect when you kick them in the teeth and tell them how it's going to be... because they will only use your stuff if they think it's useful, and if they use it after being put in line, that must be because it's useful.
It might turn off regular people to get hassled.
But hassling businesses that don't -obey- the GPL is absolutely necessarry part of getting business to adopt and take GPLed systems seriously.
Honestly, I don't think this way myself and have quit jobs rather than work with people I've had to abuse to get a fair deal from... but I've seen it again and again... many business people don't respect you until you beat the hell out of them.
>Just because a language allows a construct doesn't mean you have to use it.
excellent point. In fact, it's The Point. C and espc. C++ are toolboxes. "But this box has a hammer and I want to screw something in? Why is there a hammer in there?" Or worse, I will screw this in by placing the screwdriver in the screw head, and banging the screwdriver with the hammer! Why doesn't this work?"
ug. I very much enjoyed your phrasing about C not being about bondage and discipline.
I'm sure you are aware that there are trivial habits to avoid this sort of confusion... so I assume you think a software engineer needs to be forced from swimming in a swamp.
Personally I never tried to do that even when I first learned C, I always did:
int this,that, other;
int *pThis, *pThat, *pOther;
Why on earth I would need the compiler/language to force me into this habit is beyond me, especially when C allows other ways to avoid this. It's like people want a paint brush designed such that it won't allow me to paint my house neon gree. I think I can handle that on my own thank you... and I just might want to do it!
I mean... perhaps it's old history, but when I went to 3-4 grade in San Jose they cancelled recess often because of smog alerts.
More recently, when going to San Jose area I can see the smog... perhaps you need to compare with more rural areas rather than, say, San Francisco?
"no smog" in Silicon Valley! That is the power of positive thinking. Perhaps it's all cleaned up now, although I lived in California most of my life, I moved away a couple years ago.
Don't get me wrong though, I was just taking a cheap shot --- there are plenty of things to recommend Silicon Valley including being the historic seat of the computer revolution.
I just hate smog. AND I remember the day that San Franciscan's said "we don't have smog, it all blows down to San Jose". Um, you all have smog. Live in the Sierra's for a few years and when you drive to the city you will wonder if there is a fire or something! (except, of course, that the San Joaquin Valley is also filling up with smog so that it is spilling into mountain communities like Nevada City and even Yosemite Valley... so soon there will be little escape unless you live near the Trinity Alps).
By the way... Hawaii says "we have no smog, it blows out to sea"... now that's almost true, but too bad the fish are filling up with mercury ruining the fishing. If sit behind a car and the exhaust blows past you rather than going into orbit around you... is that just fine? It might be better... you don't die in a half hour... it's not "nothing". And of course it goes somewhere. Silicon Valley, like any densly populated area, does in fact produce plenty of smog.
the sort of price support you imply leading to more jobs does not lead to more jobs. It leads to more IT going abroad. It leads to underselling. Solved problems evolve toward commodity status because they have to become comodities to become ubiquitous infrastructure.
Programs that are really unique and ahead of their time will remain commercial, can be shrink wrapped it there is a large enough market. However, something like an OS is a solved problem. Basic word processing: solved. To think you can stretch out the number of jobs by fighting this trend is misquided imnsho because there is so much more interesting work to be done.
But also, in general, I would want to see some sort of quantitative argument that this results in lost jobs. It may lead to less stock-option millionaires, and that was nice, but which phenomenon leads to less IT jobs is a matter of debate.
Slashdot Mirror
do you know that sig quote is Nietzsche?
my understanding is the license you get says that SCO will not sue you over their IP in linux. And they won't. If they have no IP in linux, they still won't sue you.
And that shows they at least admit they might be selling thin air (that's the capitalist's dream!)
... they ARE asking a high price. $700 for linux? That's insane!
well, actually one would be correct, they don't have to pay, but they can't use Linux. Why, because the GPL forbids inserting royalty generating code. Any linux distro in which SCO code resides cannot be used, the GPL does not apply and copyright prohibits it's use. SCO can use their own IP, but not the GPLed IP of others.
SCO say copyright "trumps" the GPL, as if they conflict, when in reality, of course copyright "trumps", copyright is the right upon which the GPL is entirely based!
>All true, but that does not negate the truthfulness of the parent poster's statement. The population is dumbed down. How it happened is more complex than just video games - the educational system played its part as well, but people are less well educated today than 25 years ago and it shows in their amusements.
I don't think so. I think that's an apparent effect. We are all just becoming more in contact with the uneducated and ignorance of others, the uneducated have more voice in the media, the ignorant have more ways to discuss their ignorance [/me looks around quick].
-MY- dad an uncle used to have fun by throwing knives at each other.
Now, Video Games... THOSE have been dumbed down.
blame Webster.
>There's a reason it's the right wing.
because it needs a left wing. So they can work together to run everything for their real goals and desires which they truly have in common.
but in this case they would be allowed to clean their kernel of this information. Therefore it will be trivial to find out where the nec. changes are. Unless SCO is -totally- bluffing, in which case Redhat would get it's declaration.
that is an excellent point about Redhat customers feeling served by this... it says that Redhat is willing to fight for itself and thereby the customer. It addresses the "indemnification" problem.
There is some chance that Redhat might win quickly because all they really need to win is to know where the offending code is exactly, decide it's it really offending, and if so, clean the kernel (by back patching to a previous non-offending module, most likely). It's likely SCO could be made to show their hand to Redhat within a few months and if they refuse, then Redhat might indeed win because the judge in that case might grant Redhat's desire to have their product declared legally free of SCO's IP claims as in this case SCO would not have provided any evidence to the contrary.
Either way Redhat gets quick resolution... they don't really need monetary damages, they have a problem here and now that is already hanging over them. Also Redhat will be mentioned more in SCO stories, which cements Redhat=Linux to a world growing more and more interested in linux.
but it'll be hard to know until it's tested.
OTOH, it would be a pain to have to ship every single compilation tool... maybe the GPL needs to be changed to handle this.
Consider one wrench in your theory though... what about GPLed code that uses a proprietary compiler... eg. all the projects that use the MS compiler for the Windows version. Can't ship that compiler, can you?!
Yike -- until further notice.
why did you bring that up. VMs were old hat by then.
news at eleven.
While I don't think linksys has done this, I think this thread has hit something substantial. This IS a loophole.
I don't see what would stop someone from creating a new builtin keyword for C/C++ "modification()" and using it throughout their code. If the code is on the compiler side, it's safe.
your comment gave me a thought (eh, the magic of communicative language)... anyway.
What if someone modified the gcc to allow some new idiom/construct, creating a language C--... the modifications in the source rely on the new features. They release the binaries and the source, but no compiler and no documentation.
You would have uncompileable source code. Yike.
ok, this makes me sound like a hard line capitalist bastard rather than the gentle progressive philanthrope I really am... but businessmen don't think like that.
Statistically speaking businessmen are from the type that don't respect you because you are nice, or because you give them something for free... the have far more respect when you kick them in the teeth and tell them how it's going to be... because they will only use your stuff if they think it's useful, and if they use it after being put in line, that must be because it's useful.
It might turn off regular people to get hassled.
But hassling businesses that don't -obey- the GPL is absolutely necessarry part of getting business to adopt and take GPLed systems seriously.
Honestly, I don't think this way myself and have quit jobs rather than work with people I've had to abuse to get a fair deal from... but I've seen it again and again... many business people don't respect you until you beat the hell out of them.
Sort of like barroom brawlers.
I have long been familiar with the jargon file, but I've certainly not read it all and wasn't familiar with the B&D entry. Thanks.
I have read The Story of Mel, before, however... although it was a pleasure to be directed to it and read it again.
cheers.
hungarian notation is overkill... but pWhatever is quite a good idea.
>Just because a language allows a construct doesn't mean you have to use it.
excellent point. In fact, it's The Point. C and espc. C++ are toolboxes. "But this box has a hammer and I want to screw something in? Why is there a hammer in there?" Or worse, I will screw this in by placing the screwdriver in the screw head, and banging the screwdriver with the hammer! Why doesn't this work?"
ug. I very much enjoyed your phrasing about C not being about bondage and discipline.
up in an int.
"*down" is also an int.
I'm sure you are aware that there are trivial habits to avoid this sort of confusion... so I assume you think a software engineer needs to be forced from swimming in a swamp.
Personally I never tried to do that even when I first learned C, I always did:
int this,that, other;
int *pThis, *pThat, *pOther;
Why on earth I would need the compiler/language to force me into this habit is beyond me, especially when C allows other ways to avoid this. It's like people want a paint brush designed such that it won't allow me to paint my house neon gree. I think I can handle that on my own thank you... and I just might want to do it!
> If the DMCA had been thought of 20 years ago, would BIOS have been circumvented?
well, the only problem with this point is the answer is certain. No.
very good example (I think I've seen you have this as your sig for a while, at least, I've seen this sig before).
>Java (and other "restrictive" languages) only prevent a small class of errors, e.g., memory leaks.
perhaps you and I should form a PAC on this subject!
so true.
And the funny part is this does not prevent memory mismanagement.
hmmmm.... maybe Saddam hid the WMD in the Hubble?
best to check soon.
roflmao!
I mean... perhaps it's old history, but when I went to 3-4 grade in San Jose they cancelled recess often because of smog alerts.
More recently, when going to San Jose area I can see the smog... perhaps you need to compare with more rural areas rather than, say, San Francisco?
"no smog" in Silicon Valley! That is the power of positive thinking. Perhaps it's all cleaned up now, although I lived in California most of my life, I moved away a couple years ago.
Don't get me wrong though, I was just taking a cheap shot --- there are plenty of things to recommend Silicon Valley including being the historic seat of the computer revolution.
I just hate smog. AND I remember the day that San Franciscan's said "we don't have smog, it all blows down to San Jose". Um, you all have smog. Live in the Sierra's for a few years and when you drive to the city you will wonder if there is a fire or something! (except, of course, that the San Joaquin Valley is also filling up with smog so that it is spilling into mountain communities like Nevada City and even Yosemite Valley... so soon there will be little escape unless you live near the Trinity Alps).
By the way... Hawaii says "we have no smog, it blows out to sea"... now that's almost true, but too bad the fish are filling up with mercury ruining the fishing. If sit behind a car and the exhaust blows past you rather than going into orbit around you... is that just fine? It might be better... you don't die in a half hour... it's not "nothing". And of course it goes somewhere. Silicon Valley, like any densly populated area, does in fact produce plenty of smog.
the sort of price support you imply leading to more jobs does not lead to more jobs. It leads to more IT going abroad. It leads to underselling. Solved problems evolve toward commodity status because they have to become comodities to become ubiquitous infrastructure.
Programs that are really unique and ahead of their time will remain commercial, can be shrink wrapped it there is a large enough market. However, something like an OS is a solved problem. Basic word processing: solved. To think you can stretch out the number of jobs by fighting this trend is misquided imnsho because there is so much more interesting work to be done.
But also, in general, I would want to see some sort of quantitative argument that this results in lost jobs. It may lead to less stock-option millionaires, and that was nice, but which phenomenon leads to less IT jobs is a matter of debate.
it's the smog... it makes for beautiful sunsets.