Not really.;) AT&T sold the patent rights and copyrights to USL (UNIX Systems Labs) which then proceeded to pull a similar manuever back in 1991 to stem the progress of the *BSD crowd of OSes. They alleged that *BSD had AT&T code in it and couldn't be distribited without a license from them. (sound familiar??) They lost when the court found that there was NO Sys V code in BSD and that USL had copied much of the BSD code into SysV, thereby significantly weakining their claim. While USL went off to lick it's very deep wounds, it sold it's interest in UNIX to Novell.
Novell, after some brain fart, sold the copyrights to UNIX System V Rev 4 to the *original* Santa Cruz Operation.
Caldera, then buys SCO. Now Caldera owns the copyrights to UNIX. A portion of the company still calling itself SCO breaks off and renames itself Tarantella to focus on their web framework. Meanwhile, Ransom Love (the CEO of Caldera) is saying that "Caldera is combining Linux and UNIX for the Enterprise". Caldera renames itself the "SCO Group" and continues to try to sell it's brand of Linux. Ransom Love leaves the company and Darl McBride is brought on as CEO. And well... we all know the story from here on... he decides to pull the biggest betrayal the Free Software/Open Source community has ever seen and proceeds to sue everyone in sight in a terrible fit of Sour Grapes because SCO-Caldera is doing so poorly.
Conclusion:
There is currently very little reason to believe SCO-Caldera's allegations. They have shown no proof, they continue to knowingly distribute the kernel under the GPL today, and they are, legally, in what is called "laches". Laches refers to a delay in litigation. If someone is infringing on your rights, it is up to you to act ASAP. You can't like SCO, wait and then sue because it's obvious you can't compete.
It's doubtful that any ruling in SCO's favor, although the chances of them winning are remote, will have any lasting effect on Linux itself. The offending code will be removed and we will go on.
The whole thing is far from over and far from proven. We will prevail.
I'm 33, so I'm not a kid. I too remember doing this.
The issue now is that it's happening on a mass scale. Copying a tape or two here and there is nothing. Allowing every person in the world with access to Kazaa to download music that you have bought and converted to MP3s is totally different.
You know it's true. BTW, try not to play the ago card unless you know how old the person you're talking to is.
To answer your last question. Software patents should be banned because they represent ownership of an *idea* and only an *idea* which is specifically against the purpose of the patent system in the first place. The patent system's purpose was for *inventions* not everything under the sun.
I am not for the RIAA, I am for copyright protection. If I give you permission to copy and freely disctribute a program that I write, that's okay (which I have done as I contribute to several Free Software projects). If, however, I as the copyright holder don't allow you to freely copy my work, that's a different story.
Now you will see them start to offer SCO UnixWare at discounted prices to everyone who runs Linux.
It's a typical ploy: 1) Plant doubt about the other guys product, in this case use Linux's open nature against it.... 2) Swoop in and act like a saviour
and which you haven't paid for is WRONG. If the artist gives you the right to copy or download, then as the copyright holder he/she has that right. If however, you must pay for the music, then dont' download.
You are just hurting yourselves here. I don't know why people feel as though downloading copyrighted (as opposed to copylefted -- i.e. permission granted by the artist) music is *okay*.
Software patents are wrong in general. It seems as though this company has become a litigation engine for finding infringements of it's patent anywhere it can, even if it's a stretch.
I'm no Microsoft lover, but I don't like seeing software patents abused in this way.
Thanks for the sentiment, Anonymous Coward.:) And now, thanks to India we have threat of more fear and death.
Comparing this to the evils levied upon certain people by thier own countrymen via the archaic and utterly stupid caste system over the millenia, American "crimes" over the past two centuries pale in comparison.
India doesn't deserve the prosperity since it contributed to the instabilty of the region by developing nuclear capability against UN, US and G7 wishes.
The rest of the world is jealous of what the US has, so therefore they believe that the citizens of the US should be responsible for dragging thier country up out of the third world muck that it festers in. If you think that they citizens of the US will sit idle and let other countries damage the US economy further when they are the ones footing the bill, you had better think again.
It's not whining (which you somehow managed to misspell at least twice in your post), it's just reality.
It's amazing that an anonymous poster like yourself can be so cocky. I have found, in my experience, that programmers are programmers pretty much worldwide. No one group is better than the other.
The capability maturity model (CMM) refers to a documented and repeatable process from design through quality assurance. It has little or nothing to do with the ultimate quality of the product. A CMM level 5 company can produce utter crap, but still have a CMM Level 5 process in place.
Good day. GJC
P.S. When you use big words, you really should know what they mean.:)
Nothing has been proven in a court of law about this yet! SCO is practicing extortion and protection tactics, plain and simple.
These most recent developments change NOTHING!! It's still the same old story with a bit of window dressing. It's just more legal maneuvering and hard/fast talk from SCO.
You post is a non-sequitor. If SCO put the code in there or released the kernel with the code in there, then they have released it under the terms of the GPL, plain and simple.
It's not a matter of "respecting other peoples IP". It's a matter of SCO recognizing that they have released this code to the masses as part of their own distribution. Please see:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
Also, since the code in question has never been *fully* shown (bit and pieces only from what I understand) to anyone, it's not possible to correct the situation by taking the code out, if it indeed *is* in there.
SCO is attempting to screw the community for their own benefit, just like USL did in years past to BSD. SCO will end up the same as USL in the end: limping away and linking it's wounds.
P.S. I don't use windows because it is so suceptible to viruses and I actually value my data.
The latter. They can, legally, say or offer anything they wish. If people are dumb enough to fall for it, then that's the way it goes.
I could offer a license to run Windows, if I wanted, and if people are dumb enough to buy it then so be it. That's about the same amount of merit this has.
As I told you before. Keep screwing with the community and we will screw you back. It's lovely to see such professional replies from you on the kernel list, such as "we'll change the protocol".
So what! We'll come up with a better protocol which isn't proprietary and works better than bitkeeper. This will eventually make bitkeeper a non-issue. It's nice to see that you're unwilling to compete on the merits of your software, whatever those are, and immediately start playing the lockout game!!! Great move, Larry!!
So, as I said once before (and I know it was you who replied) I say again: So long, Larry, and thanks for all the fish!
Do you mean of SCO winning? If so, I agree. If you mean they won't be called onto the carpet I think time will tell that story. They play a major part in Linux's history and then turn around and sue. Smells like a lawsuit in there someplace.
Barratry \Bar"ra*try\, n. [Cf. F. baraterie, LL. barataria. See {Barrator}, and cf. {Bartery}.]
1. (Law) The practice of exciting and encouraging lawsuits and quarrels. [Also spelt {barretry}.] --Coke. Blackstone.
The above is from the 1913 Webster's dictionary. It's normal use today descibes use of the legal system to slander or malign someone.
After all is said and done, if SCO loses (which is likely) they will be called on the carpet for this, I'm sure.
Now I have seen everything. Human Vices and Virtues are a matter of common sense. It makes sense that this would even be patentable even to the dimmest of patent examiners.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a well known fact that MS has benefitted from the BSD Internet Protocol stack as well as other BSD code.
Because it is closed source, who can say if your free software project's code isn't in there, GPL or not!!
Screw you, Bill, for spreading this FUD.
GJC
Not really. ;) AT&T sold the patent rights and copyrights to USL (UNIX Systems Labs) which then proceeded to pull a similar manuever back in 1991 to stem the progress of the *BSD crowd of OSes. They alleged that *BSD had AT&T code in it and couldn't be distribited without a license from them. (sound familiar??) They lost when the court found that there was NO Sys V code in BSD and that USL had copied much of the BSD code into SysV, thereby significantly weakining their claim. While USL went off to lick it's very deep wounds, it sold it's interest in UNIX to Novell.
Novell, after some brain fart, sold the copyrights to UNIX System V Rev 4 to the *original* Santa Cruz Operation.
Caldera, then buys SCO. Now Caldera owns the copyrights to UNIX. A portion of the company still calling itself SCO breaks off and renames itself Tarantella to focus on their web framework. Meanwhile, Ransom Love (the CEO of Caldera) is saying that "Caldera is combining Linux and UNIX for the Enterprise". Caldera renames itself the "SCO Group" and continues to try to sell it's brand of Linux. Ransom Love leaves the company and Darl McBride is brought on as CEO. And well... we all know the story from here on... he decides to pull the biggest betrayal the Free Software/Open Source community has ever seen and proceeds to sue everyone in sight in a terrible fit of Sour Grapes because SCO-Caldera is doing so poorly.
Conclusion:
There is currently very little reason to believe SCO-Caldera's allegations. They have shown no proof, they continue to knowingly distribute the kernel under the GPL today, and they are, legally, in what is called "laches". Laches refers to a delay in litigation. If someone is infringing on your rights, it is up to you to act ASAP. You can't like SCO, wait and then sue because it's obvious you can't compete.
It's doubtful that any ruling in SCO's favor, although the chances of them winning are remote, will have any lasting effect on Linux itself. The offending code will be removed and we will go on.
The whole thing is far from over and far from proven. We will prevail.
GJC
I'm 33, so I'm not a kid. I too remember doing this.
The issue now is that it's happening on a mass scale. Copying a tape or two here and there is nothing. Allowing every person in the world with access to Kazaa to download music that you have bought and converted to MP3s is totally different.
You know it's true. BTW, try not to play the ago card unless you know how old the person you're talking to is.
To answer your last question. Software patents should be banned because they represent ownership of an *idea* and only an *idea* which is specifically against the purpose of the patent system in the first place. The patent system's purpose was for *inventions* not everything under the sun.
I am not for the RIAA, I am for copyright protection. If I give you permission to copy and freely disctribute a program that I write, that's okay (which I have done as I contribute to several Free Software projects). If, however, I as the copyright holder don't allow you to freely copy my work, that's a different story.
GJC
Now you will see them start to offer SCO UnixWare at discounted prices to everyone who runs Linux.
It's a typical ploy:
1) Plant doubt about the other guys product, in this case use Linux's open nature against it....
2) Swoop in and act like a saviour
Well, we're not falling for it.
GJC
and which you haven't paid for is WRONG. If the artist gives you the right to copy or download, then as the copyright holder he/she has that right. If however, you must pay for the music, then dont' download.
You are just hurting yourselves here. I don't know why people feel as though downloading copyrighted (as opposed to copylefted -- i.e. permission granted by the artist) music is *okay*.
Later, GJC
Software patents are wrong in general. It seems as though this company has become a litigation engine for finding infringements of it's patent anywhere it can, even if it's a stretch.
I'm no Microsoft lover, but I don't like seeing software patents abused in this way.
GJC
Thanks for the sentiment, Anonymous Coward. :)
And now, thanks to India we have threat of more fear and death.
Comparing this to the evils levied upon certain people by thier own countrymen via the archaic and utterly stupid caste system over the millenia, American "crimes" over the past two centuries pale in comparison.
GJC
India doesn't deserve the prosperity since it contributed to the instabilty of the region by developing nuclear capability against UN, US and G7 wishes.
The rest of the world is jealous of what the US has, so therefore they believe that the citizens of the US should be responsible for dragging thier country up out of the third world muck that it festers in. If you think that they citizens of the US will sit idle and let other countries damage the US economy further when they are the ones footing the bill, you had better think again.
It's not whining (which you somehow managed to misspell at least twice in your post), it's just reality.
Later, GJC
It's amazing that an anonymous poster like yourself can be so cocky. I have found, in my experience, that programmers are programmers pretty much worldwide. No one group is better than the other.
:)
The capability maturity model (CMM) refers to a documented and repeatable process from design through quality assurance. It has little or nothing to do with the ultimate quality of the product. A CMM level 5 company can produce utter crap, but still have a CMM Level 5 process in place.
Good day. GJC
P.S. When you use big words, you really should know what they mean.
Nothing has been proven in a court of law about this yet! SCO is practicing extortion and protection tactics, plain and simple.
These most recent developments change NOTHING!! It's still the same old story with a bit of window dressing. It's just more legal maneuvering and hard/fast talk from SCO.
Later, GJC
You post is a non-sequitor. If SCO put the code in there or released the kernel with the code in there, then they have released it under the terms of the GPL, plain and simple.
:)
It's not a matter of "respecting other peoples IP". It's a matter of SCO recognizing that they have released this code to the masses as part of their own distribution. Please see:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
Also, since the code in question has never been *fully* shown (bit and pieces only from what I understand) to anyone, it's not possible to correct the situation by taking the code out, if it indeed *is* in there.
SCO is attempting to screw the community for their own benefit, just like USL did in years past to BSD. SCO will end up the same as USL in the end: limping away and linking it's wounds.
P.S. I don't use windows because it is so suceptible to viruses and I actually value my data.
P.P.S Only utter cowards post anonymously.
Have a nice day!
I could, of course, get sued by the LEGAL copyright hold once it's proven I have no claim. Which is likely what will happen with SCO.
Apologies for replying to my own post...
GJC
The latter. They can, legally, say or offer anything they wish. If people are dumb enough to fall for it, then that's the way it goes.
I could offer a license to run Windows, if I wanted, and if people are dumb enough to buy it then so be it. That's about the same amount of merit this has.
GJC
If I had moderator access right now, I would mod your post up. I totally agree with what you're saying and couldn't have said it better.
GJC
Yes and we all know how saddeninly ineffective it is. Please see the petition in my .sig.
Larry,
As I told you before. Keep screwing with the community and we will screw you back. It's lovely to see such professional replies from you on the kernel list, such as "we'll change the protocol".
So what! We'll come up with a better protocol which isn't proprietary and works better than bitkeeper. This will eventually make bitkeeper a non-issue. It's nice to see that you're unwilling to compete on the merits of your software, whatever those are, and immediately start playing the lockout game!!! Great move, Larry!!
So, as I said once before (and I know it was you who replied) I say again: So long, Larry, and thanks for all the fish!
Later, GJC
> Unfortunately it's not....
:)
Ah.. I had always thought it was the other.
> Not a changce.
Do you mean of SCO winning? If so, I agree. If you mean they won't be called onto the carpet I think time will tell that story. They play a major part in Linux's history and then turn around and sue. Smells like a lawsuit in there someplace.
GJC
COOL! You're right!! It's a good thing I've got a Mac. :)
and yes, there are laws against it.
Barratry \Bar"ra*try\, n. [Cf. F. baraterie, LL. barataria. See {Barrator}, and cf. {Bartery}.]
1. (Law) The practice of exciting and encouraging lawsuits and quarrels. [Also spelt {barretry}.] --Coke. Blackstone.
The above is from the 1913 Webster's dictionary. It's normal use today descibes use of the legal system to slander or malign someone.
After all is said and done, if SCO loses (which is likely) they will be called on the carpet for this, I'm sure.
GJC
Anyone who buys into this crap is fueling SCO's litigation against Linux.
Don't do it.
GJC
Your screensaver is probably a preprogrammed sequence. This is not. Your screensaver can't *learn* how to walk. This can.
There's a huge difference between being programmed to walk by a human and learning to walk by itself.
GJC
Actually, I believe the stories stopped due to the restraining order preventing SCO from spreading their crap so as not to bias any court decision.
GJC
THAT would be cool. :)
A small handheld which can catalog those .d64 drive images and play the old games. THAT would be interesting.
GJC
Now I have seen everything. Human Vices and Virtues are a matter of common sense. It makes sense that this would even be patentable even to the dimmest of patent examiners.
GJC