The most important thing is that it is useful to you.
I recently listed a project on freshmeat as well as posted information to usenet newsgroups where some will find it relative and interesting to the newsgroup.
The description was edited by a freshmeat editor and could probably be written differently to attract a little more attention. But this project is not going to die, cause I won't let it... Cause it's useful to me, and that's the most important I can think of.
There is far better software out there for dealing with Usenet than Microsofts stuff.
I think Microsofts problem is that they are viewing the world thru the software they make and as such are really quite blind as to what is already available. So when they come up with some improvement, they really don't know it was done a decade ago or better and actually think they invented something new.
The objective of Granting IP rights is to not suppress competition and innovation but rather to help promote it.
When the machinery stops functioning in the proper manner then it's OK to ignore the machinery.
As thing are, the Patent office doesn't have the means to toss out foolish patents like swinging sideways on a swing.
A great deal of IP in software is invalid... not IP right assignment protectable, especially software patents, and even business methods.
You cannot patent natural law, physical phenonmenon or abstract ideas... and that just the basic three. It follows on that mathmatical algorythims are also not IP protectable, etc...
he reason why such things are being granted such rights is because of nothing more than the given offices of governmenyt that do such IP rights granting are in it for the money as is teh legal system.
Neither the legal system of the offices bof the givernment really don't have any power over the natural forces of physics... and that includes teh physics of abstraction creating and use.
It just a matter of time that people begin understanding that such IP rights are along the lines of claiming the world is flat.
It's all about economy and computer technology is not supposed to be an industry with power over all other industries, as it is evolving to be by the greedy, but an industry of assisting other industries to be productive.
There is the direct values you can see the greedy produce at the unseen expense of it's taxation of productivity and financial resources that would other wise more directly benefit the people of the world. I.E. Many countries are converting to Linux because of the productive value they can use the software to help them achieve. It has become clear that they do not need to pay companies like MS when there are plenty enough of the people willing and able to produce compariable value assisting tools.
Choice..... that's the problem companies like SCO and MS are faced with in their old style business, as is the music and entertainment industry.
The church and kingdoms tried to suppress the people with the flat world concept....
Now we have what is becomming old style business trying to suppress the peoples choice.
It all nothing more than what amounts to last ditch efforts to continue the existance of an industry model that has lived it's time and now it's time to die..... change...
That's really all there is to it. The struggle of a dying industry.
SCO is now going to license Linux......But how can the open source community negate what the license is supposed to be for? Funny how SCO seems to now be trying to capitilize off of a crime they blamed IBM for but they themselves committed.
If SCO can claim their IP is wrongly in Linux and try and sell a license for protection from them sueing you.... then who else can try that?
I think the FSF and Linus should sponsor a class action lawsuit against SCO for intent to extort. Certainly the EFF would or should be willing to handle the legal position.???
Due to technological advancements, better ways of doing things, old industry is being flushed out.
This includes proprietary software. (isn't that what MS is saying?)
It also includes flushing out the old music industry and more...
So much has been integrated into a larger system of "old business" that as one industry reacts to change other industries tied in integration are as well tugged on.
Note that it's the software industry that tugs on the entertainment industry....
The wave being caused by open source (OSI definition - not MS's definition) is being felt further than just the old software industry.
Economic Environment....
Don't nobody tell MS that there list is incorrect, they will eventually figure it out, when they no longer can ignore their old ways are not working, cause everyone else knows it.
Guess this tells us what MS's next line of irrationality is going to be with the politicians.
"To save our (double speak meaning MSs personal economy) economy you have to outlaw Open Source and then sentance all criminals to have to use our software. A matter of homeland security, you understand...??"
SCO and Microsoft can complain all they want but the bottom line is choice and it's a choice people are deciding to move away from proprietary software.
SCO and Microsoft and anyone else are not going to take choice away from people. And anyone complaining about consumers having such a choice only shows the true nature of the complainers.
There are a hell of a lot of people who were not a participant in any supposed code that wrongly got in in Linux, nor did they do anything to say they approve of any such problemmatic code. Like most all that use Linux.
They use Linux because they want to get away from corporate IP Bitchslapping!!!!!
Whether or not there is problematic code doesn't mean SCO lost money because if it. It's clear SCO is losing money because people want to move away from the IP bitchslapping.
The guilty party(s) should stop hurting the many who clearly don't want the guilty party(s).
It seems clear to me that a class action law suit can be made againt SCO and any other guilty party.
Mod parent up Re:Big Clue revealed
on
Latest SCO News
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
As a matter of Linux community majority interest....
Taking what actions we can to try and identify and resolve any code conflicts will at worse show that it is not the intent of the high majority of Linux developers an users to infringe upon the IP of another.
It would also show that the withholding of such evidence to enable direct and immediate correction of any code conflict is a clear indication of intent to cause undue prolonged harm to the Linux Community.
Providing grounds for the Linux community to file a class action Lawsuit against such parties who have knowingly injected conflicting code.
There should be no question of the intent of the mass majority of the Linux community to produce and use a product of and for the community that enables them to free themselves of those who are in contrast of the GPL.
Class Action Law Suits against SCO/IBM ...
on
Latest SCO News
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
There are a few straight forward things here:
Until there is a court decission the linux community and clients cannot be held liable (I bought and used the faulty tires, does that mke me liable in their failing and killing my family?)
Only after such court decission of there being SCO code in Linux will there then be possible liability upon the community/clients should they do nothing within a "reasonable amount of time" to correct the matter. Either by paying royalities to SCO or the removal/replacement of the offending code.
But in no case will anyone be held liable for wrongs someone else committed, unless they so chose to continue on a wrong path after being informed of the wrong. As of NOW, there is only claim of wrong and that is just not good enough.
Both Proof and a reasonable time in which to correct the problem is required before the Linux community and client base can be held liable.
And we all know that any such problems will most certainly be addressed and corrected by the Linux development community well within any reasonable timeline.
EVEN SCO knows this.
And that is their reason for not disclosing the proof of their claims regarding the code. Intent to cause unjustified prolonged harm.
Even if there is SCO code in the Linux source, what SCO is doing now is obvious and intentional acts of unjustified damage against Linux, it's development community and user/client base. For it should be a matter of certainty that by far the majority of Linux developers were not knowingly involved. As such the Linux Development and User/Client Base can file and pursue a Class Action Law Suit Against SCO.
If IBM is guilty of injecting such code into Linux and promoting others to do so, then IBM can be sued by the Linux community in what would amount to be a class action law suit.
The same goes for any other company or individual who knowingly injects into the collective works of many many people, such property as to cause a degradation of the values many have worked to achieve an use with such understanding.
For it is certainly an act of those honestly contributing to such a work, as to free themselves from the hold and manipulation of such parities in such contrast of the GPL.
at what point will the court system recognize SCO is harming far more business than they can ever hope to themselves handle?
Oh wait.... MS vs. DOJ......
Never mind.
Re:Ultimately GNU/Linux Dev has to be given .....
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I should like to add that the results of symbolic conversion and pattern matching of source code can prove to be extreamly interesting, perhaps even having an massive impact on the programming industry.
Imagine finding out that all code has prior art and that such art is inherently not patentable or otherwise IP ownable.
You cannot patent natural law, physical phenomenon, or abstract ideas. Amoung other things, but these are the main three.
Ultimately GNU/Linux Dev has to be given .....
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
the opportunity to correct any code determined to be an infringement.
So how do you code change a hello world program?
According to patent law there are some things that are not patentable. And this includes such things that anyone in such a relative field would come to the same or similiar solution in the normal course of work.
What this means is that for SCO to prove there is code of theirs in Linux - And I'm sure they are doing some conversion on the code (i.e. converting variable names and function calls to some common symbolic sets) and comparing the results - they have to also show that such solutions are not common knowledge today, such that solution is likely to be patentable today.
Considering the fact that the linux code is open source........
Who is to say that SCO themselves did not spike the code?
What is more likely to be the case is that they are finding pattern matches after doing symbolic conversions. Sorta along the lines of searching for bible codes but far more mathmatically likely to find matches.
In this symbolic pattern matching the task of linux will be to be allowed to disprove the probability of correct findings proving infringement.
The conversion process alone could be reason to NDA it.
But perhaps now the cat is out of the bag and we can openly start creating our own symbolic conversion programs to process sourcecode for pattern matching.
Why hasn't anyone filed a Cease and Desist order Against SCO regarding their talking to the press with their claims, until they are forthcomming with the claimed evidence?
Seriously, the argument that free software is "A threat to America's innovation and security," makes about as much sense as the one that says that giving rich people a tax break will lead to more jobs.
Perhaps the question is:
What is the definition of "American innovation and security"?
based on the claims, write a definition where the claims are correct.
Slashdot Mirror
The most important thing is that it is useful to you.
I recently listed a project on freshmeat as well as posted information to usenet newsgroups where some will find it relative and interesting to the newsgroup.
The description was edited by a freshmeat editor and could probably be written differently to attract a little more attention. But this project is not going to die, cause I won't let it... Cause it's useful to me, and that's the most important I can think of.
yeah...... OK
It seems the strategy has changed from lying their asses off to being honest about lying their asses off.
Are we supposed to accept them now and say it's OK to lie so long as you are honest about it, eventually?????
Or is this "how to treat consumers like morons and get away with it"?
There is far better software out there for dealing with Usenet than Microsofts stuff.
I think Microsofts problem is that they are viewing the world thru the software they make and as such are really quite blind as to what is already available. So when they come up with some improvement, they really don't know it was done a decade ago or better and actually think they invented something new.
What is Usenet good for?
establishing Prior art for one....
The objective of Granting IP rights is to not suppress competition and innovation but rather to help promote it.
When the machinery stops functioning in the proper manner then it's OK to ignore the machinery.
As thing are, the Patent office doesn't have the means to toss out foolish patents like swinging sideways on a swing.
A great deal of IP in software is invalid... not IP right assignment protectable, especially software patents, and even business methods.
You cannot patent natural law, physical phenonmenon or abstract ideas... and that just the basic three. It follows on that mathmatical algorythims are also not IP protectable, etc...
he reason why such things are being granted such rights is because of nothing more than the given offices of governmenyt that do such IP rights granting are in it for the money as is teh legal system.
Neither the legal system of the offices bof the givernment really don't have any power over the natural forces of physics... and that includes teh physics of abstraction creating and use.
It just a matter of time that people begin understanding that such IP rights are along the lines of claiming the world is flat.
It's all about economy and computer technology is not supposed to be an industry with power over all other industries, as it is evolving to be by the greedy, but an industry of assisting other industries to be productive.
There is the direct values you can see the greedy produce at the unseen expense of it's taxation of productivity and financial resources that would other wise more directly benefit the people of the world. I.E. Many countries are converting to Linux because of the productive value they can use the software to help them achieve. It has become clear that they do not need to pay companies like MS when there are plenty enough of the people willing and able to produce compariable value assisting tools.
Choice..... that's the problem companies like SCO and MS are faced with in their old style business, as is the music and entertainment industry.
The church and kingdoms tried to suppress the people with the flat world concept....
Now we have what is becomming old style business trying to suppress the peoples choice.
Take it slow..... like as in get ready for transparently moving over to the Hurd.
So many have commented about the slow development of the Hurd core..... but it's getting closer and closer every day.
Honesty, by the time this case SCO vs. IBM goes thru court, the Hurd will have seen it's first public release, maybe even a second.
And at that point in time it will not matter.
It all nothing more than what amounts to last ditch efforts to continue the existance of an industry model that has lived it's time and now it's time to die..... change...
That's really all there is to it. The struggle of a dying industry.
When was the last time you read the Declaration of Independance?
Life is filled with exceptions, and that includes the use of guns too. (there are other US documents in such support)
Perhaps the failure here is the court system (AGAIN).
What do the people want? Oh wait, they aready said that they want freedom from corporate abuses.
SCO is now going to license Linux......But how can the open source community negate what the license is supposed to be for? Funny how SCO seems to now be trying to capitilize off of a crime they blamed IBM for but they themselves committed.
If SCO can claim their IP is wrongly in Linux and try and sell a license for protection from them sueing you.... then who else can try that?
I think the FSF and Linus should sponsor a class action lawsuit against SCO for intent to extort.
Certainly the EFF would or should be willing to handle the legal position.???
Declaratiuon of Independance
When was the last time you actually read it and understood how and why its the publics right and duty to correct such injustices?
Due to technological advancements, better ways of doing things, old industry is being flushed out.
This includes proprietary software. (isn't that what MS is saying?)
It also includes flushing out the old music industry and more...
So much has been integrated into a larger system of "old business" that as one industry reacts to change other industries tied in integration are as well tugged on.
Note that it's the software industry that tugs on the entertainment industry....
The wave being caused by open source (OSI definition - not MS's definition) is being felt further than just the old software industry.
Economic Environment....
Don't nobody tell MS that there list is incorrect, they will eventually figure it out, when they no longer can ignore their old ways are not working, cause everyone else knows it.
Guess this tells us what MS's next line of irrationality is going to be with the politicians.
"To save our (double speak meaning MSs personal economy) economy you have to outlaw Open Source and then sentance all criminals to have to use our software. A matter of homeland security, you understand...??"
SCO and Microsoft can complain all they want but the bottom line is choice and it's a choice people are deciding to move away from proprietary software.
SCO and Microsoft and anyone else are not going to take choice away from people. And anyone complaining about consumers having such a choice only shows the true nature of the complainers.
" If you or your business have a complaint about Microsoft's business behavior or practices, please ......"
Switch to Linux.....
I don't think RMS is such a hard ass a all.
In fact his is a bit easy going.
A real hard ass would have a class action lawsuit going on against SCO for all the dishonest and outright intentional damage SCO is causing.
But it is so interesting how such a short and honest article can put down and bring clairity to the endless crap in and around SCO vs. IBM...
People have chosen OSS and the GPL.... SO they can get the fuck away from the closed minded!!!!
Majority rules here. Public choice!
Anyone guilty of tampering with that is guilty of anti-trust.
SCO has lost no money even if their code appear to be in the Linux source.
They have no case against IBM acussing IBM of harming SCOs income.
It's simple, people made the choice to get away from the closed minded.
And SCO cannot force Consumer choice to be what they want it to be. Neither can MS.
I just gotta shake my head at all this.
There are a hell of a lot of people who were not a participant in any supposed code that wrongly got in in Linux, nor did they do anything to say they approve of any such problemmatic code. Like most all that use Linux.
They use Linux because they want to get away from corporate IP Bitchslapping!!!!!
Whether or not there is problematic code doesn't mean SCO lost money because if it. It's clear SCO is losing money because people want to move away from the IP bitchslapping.
The guilty party(s) should stop hurting the many who clearly don't want the guilty party(s).
It seems clear to me that a class action law suit can be made againt SCO and any other guilty party.
As a matter of Linux community majority interest....
Taking what actions we can to try and identify and resolve any code conflicts will at worse show that it is not the intent of the high majority of Linux developers an users to infringe upon the IP of another.
It would also show that the withholding of such evidence to enable direct and immediate correction of any code conflict is a clear indication of intent to cause undue prolonged harm to the Linux Community.
Providing grounds for the Linux community to file a class action Lawsuit against such parties who have knowingly injected conflicting code.
There should be no question of the intent of the mass majority of the Linux community to produce and use a product of and for the community that enables them to free themselves of those who are in contrast of the GPL.
There are a few straight forward things here:
Until there is a court decission the linux community and clients cannot be held liable (I bought and used the faulty tires, does that mke me liable in their failing and killing my family?)
Only after such court decission of there being SCO code in Linux will there then be possible liability upon the community/clients should they do nothing within a "reasonable amount of time" to correct the matter. Either by paying royalities to SCO or the removal/replacement of the offending code.
But in no case will anyone be held liable for wrongs someone else committed, unless they so chose to continue on a wrong path after being informed of the wrong. As of NOW, there is only claim of wrong and that is just not good enough.
Both Proof and a reasonable time in which to correct the problem is required before the Linux community and client base can be held liable.
And we all know that any such problems will most certainly be addressed and corrected by the Linux development community well within any reasonable timeline.
EVEN SCO knows this.
And that is their reason for not disclosing the proof of their claims regarding the code. Intent to cause unjustified prolonged harm.
Even if there is SCO code in the Linux source, what SCO is doing now is obvious and intentional acts of unjustified damage against Linux, it's development community and user/client base. For it should be a matter of certainty that by far the majority of Linux developers were not knowingly involved. As such the Linux Development and User/Client Base can file and pursue a Class Action Law Suit Against SCO.
If IBM is guilty of injecting such code into Linux and promoting others to do so, then IBM can be sued by the Linux community in what would amount to be a class action law suit.
The same goes for any other company or individual who knowingly injects into the collective works of many many people, such property as to cause a degradation of the values many have worked to achieve an use with such understanding.
For it is certainly an act of those honestly contributing to such a work, as to free themselves from the hold and manipulation of such parities in such contrast of the GPL.
Certainly the EFF should know this!!!!!
Yes the war on iraq is justified by Saddam having WMD and the Dixie Chick can't sell even one ticket to their concert tour...
So where do you suppose people will go for real news?
The internet?
at what point will the court system recognize SCO is harming far more business than they can ever hope to themselves handle?
Oh wait.... MS vs. DOJ......
Never mind.
I should like to add that the results of symbolic conversion and pattern matching of source code can prove to be extreamly interesting, perhaps even having an massive impact on the programming industry.
Imagine finding out that all code has prior art and that such art is inherently not patentable or otherwise IP ownable.
You cannot patent natural law, physical phenomenon, or abstract ideas. Amoung other things, but these are the main three.
the opportunity to correct any code determined to be an infringement.
So how do you code change a hello world program?
According to patent law there are some things that are not patentable. And this includes such things that anyone in such a relative field would come to the same or similiar solution in the normal course of work.
What this means is that for SCO to prove there is code of theirs in Linux - And I'm sure they are doing some conversion on the code (i.e. converting variable names and function calls to some common symbolic sets) and comparing the results - they have to also show that such solutions are not common knowledge today, such that solution is likely to be patentable today.
Considering the fact that the linux code is open source........
Who is to say that SCO themselves did not spike the code?
What is more likely to be the case is that they are finding pattern matches after doing symbolic conversions. Sorta along the lines of searching for bible codes but far more mathmatically likely to find matches.
In this symbolic pattern matching the task of linux will be to be allowed to disprove the probability of correct findings proving infringement.
The conversion process alone could be reason to NDA it.
But perhaps now the cat is out of the bag and we can openly start creating our own symbolic conversion programs to process sourcecode for pattern matching.
Microsoft is a federal criminal that wasn't punished.
they have no motive to do anything in honesty. It is more likely that updates and patches only provide MS with more hooks into your system.
The only way to verify in the publics eyes what MS is doing is to open their source up.
And we all know that is not going to happen.
Who want's to bet that if there is SCO code in Linux it was either SCO or MS that put it there?
Why hasn't anyone filed a Cease and Desist order Against SCO regarding their talking to the press with their claims, until they are forthcomming with the claimed evidence?
Seriously, the argument that free software is "A threat to America's innovation and security," makes about as much sense as the one that says that giving rich people a tax break will lead to more jobs.
Perhaps the question is:
What is the definition of "American innovation and security"?
based on the claims, write a definition where the claims are correct.
Hint: where are the iraqi WMDs?
In all of this I see "linux" over and over and have yet to see "GNU" mentioned anywhere.
IS this saying that the GNU efforts are completely safe, that's it all about the linux kernel?
If so then SO WHAT!
GNU complete doesn't include the linux kernel.
It includes the Hurd instead. And from a technical POV, I doubt SCO can make claims to the Hurd code.