Of course, if Caldera/SCO had a programmer actually working on the code, as this article suggests, then Caldera/SCO is an equal partner in donating and modifying the SMP code for Linux.
Any bets on how long it will take for SCO to come out and say that the programmer in question was workign without the authority or knowledge of his supervisors?
is a vulture capital firm. This should be good for them. They already have a history with Corel, having bought Microsoft's shares at 56 cents a piece, taking a 20% stake in the company.
CorelDRAW is still the best illustration package available for PCs today, bar none. Illustrator doesn't hold a candle, IMHO. (This from a guy with many years of experience with both packages in a professional setting).
Yes, the GPL is a contract. Let's look at what we need for a contract:
1) You have to have an offer. The GPL contains an offer to copy, redistribute and/or modify the code it's applied to.
2) You have to have acceptance. Redistributing the code means that you have accepted the contract (since nothing else gives you the right to redistribute the code).
3) You have to have intention, also referred to as a 'meeting of the minds.' You have to have intended to enter the contract. Redistributing the code under the terms of the GPL indicates that you have a meeting of the minds in and of itself. It's very difficult to prove that you didn't mean to bind yourself to the agreement. Basically, if you exercise your rights under the agreement, no court is going to say that you didn't have a meeting of the minds. It's not like SCO didn't KNOW about the GPL. We have plenty of evidence (including their own packagign) to indicate that they DO know about the GPL.
4) You have to have consideration. The consideration here is that the GPL gives you the right to distribute the code. You, in turn, give consideration to the author to redistribute the code and/or derivative works under the same license. Consideration.
Since we have the four elements of a contract: offer, acceptance, intention, and consdideration, guess that what that means? Yes, under the law we have a CONTRACT.
Accidental giving away of copyright is NOT protected once you know about it. If you know about it, and knowingly continue to distribute the code, you are failing to mitigate your own damages, and more, you're agreeing to the terms of the GPL implicitly.
Sorry, but it just doesn't work if they are STILL distributing GPL code, well after they became aware of the problems.
Paragraph 7 is not an out. If you can't distribute under the GPL, you can't distribute at all. Which means that they can't distribute Linux in ANY FORM.
If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
meaning that even if they win they cannot distribute the binary-only version of Linux they are distributing, as announced in the article. Hence, as I mentioned before, they are currently violating the GPL. Whether or not they did it before is another issue altogether.
Oh yeah, let's not forget that by not following the GPL, they are violating *copyright* law as well, which has recently been criminalized. So strike what I just said about not being a violation of criminal law.
Breach of contract is breaking the law. Not criminal law, but civil law. And with the authority question, you're getting into agency issues. The problem is when the source is STILL sitting on their VERY PUBLIC FTP server, it's hard to say that the people in charge didn't know about it.
The GPL doesn't take away any rights whatsoever. It only grants rights, and places conditions on those rights.
If I give you the binary and source code to a program I wrote, and it contains a copryright notice, you have NO RIGHT to distribute or disclose that source NOR it's binary to third parties. Period. The GPL gives you the right to do that, ONLY ON THE CONDITION that you also distribute the source code and make it available.
It's not defeatable at all. Unless they accept the GPL, they have NO RIGHT to distribute the program. At all. Not because it's GPL, but because it is copyrighted and fully protected by United States Copyright Act of 1976, the Software Act of 1980, and various international treaties including the Berne Convention. Failure to abide by the terms of the GPL is called breach of contract. Pure and simple.
If they own the copyrights to SysV code then they can enforce them as they see fit.
If they can prove that Linux infringes upon those copyrights, then they will be able to charge for its use.
Wrong answer. *They* themselves distributed a Linux kernel, complete with source up until a week or so after they filed the suit, IIRC. If it was infringeing then, then they have relased whatever code might be in there under the terms of the GNU General Public License.
Since the Linux kernel wouldn't by any means be comprised of 100% of their code, that makes any Linux kernel that contains their code a derivative work. Which means that they MUST distribute the source to remain in compliance with license.
In other words, SCO, by releasing a binary-only Linux, is violating the terms of the GNU General Public License, and hence, they are breaking the law.
So you're telling me that if a library offered the full text of copyrighted books online, that that would not be a violation of copyright? I think a few book publishers would take issue with that.
When the personal computer revolution hit, there was a lack of a true need for PCs. Nothing that could be done on the early PCs at that time couldn't be done with some other method -- whether manual or electronic.
It came down the killer app. And the killer app was spreadsheets. Nobody in the business world could IMAGINE this day getting by without a spreadsheet.
The Internet wasn't needed either. The killer app -- universal e-mail. Our mail server went down on Friday and there was MASS PANIC! OMG! NO E-MAIL! WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO????
Strange how people seemed to exist before passing around memos and whatnot, isn't it?:)
You can already do that to an extent on Amazon and on BN.com. For some books, they let you look inside at the Intro, table of contents, and sometimes a chapter or two. You can usually see the liner notes and front and back cover too.
Very cool. I've purchased books based on the ability to look inside the book.
Of course this *could* be great for college paper researchers, looking for a quote or two to stick in a research paper. Depends on how much meat you can really get at.
If it weren't for copyright issues, I'd love to see libraries do something this. You already have the equivalent for magazine articles, but usually you have to either pay or actually go to the library to use their InfoTrac or whatever engine.
Actually, we 'think' that the mobo business is a well-understood one. How many of us know the role of mobos in the Palladium effort? How many u'stand the compulsions of BIOS writers like AMI who act as poodles to gorillas? And lastly, 5 mobos with the same chipset give 5 different benchmark results. How does this happen? In a truly commodity market, the only differentiator is price, not performance or quality.
How many truly look at benchmark results for Motherboards? I know I don't. I look at features. I look at price. But I do look at brand, and I do see your point. Asus and Gigabyte make better boards than Elitegroup, especially in terms of stability. It's just a fact.
Exactly. When transitionign to a new platform, any userbase is going to need to figure out how to transition their data over, find or create replacements for Windows apps, etc.
It's not like they're running Linux *just* to run Windows. I'm sure some of their apps will come from the Linux side, and some from the Windows side until their Windows apps are slowly phased out.
After almost 10 years of running Linux, I *still* have a small Windows XP partition for doing stuff like games or certain Windows-only apps. I spend the *majority* of my time in Linux, sure, this is still a very Windows-centric world.
No, the RIAA will now believe that IPv6 is a tool for pirates and file sharers and will lobby congress to have it remove, resulting in the ultimate and untimely death of the Internet due to running out of IP addresses.;)
Ummm, not all of have been mastering DVDs since 1999. I've posed this question in comments several times on Slashdot and have gotten a variety of answers.
+R/RW proponents seem to think that +RW is more compatible than -R/-RW, and that it will be the standard that wins. OTOH, CDRINFO seems to be saying that *both* formats seem to have wide backing in the industry, and that the -R and -RW formats are more compatible than their + counterparts. The media for both are widely available cheaply, but -R/-RW being slightly cheaper than +R/RW
The article also points out that there seems to be a group of +R/+RW fanboys out there. Whether these guys are really zealots, or it's just astroturfing from Phillips, one can only guess.;)
CDRinfo has been fair and objective, and their methods seem fairly scientific. I applaud them, and say "It's about frickin' time!"
User6: It's the goats guy. User7: Tubgirl User8: It's a picture of *BSD dying User9: ummm...that would be *GNU*/inkblot UserA: errr...that one's a Mac G4, that's Mac G5, iMac, TiBook, alBook, it's the OS X logo... UserB: that's a server getting slashdotted!
You guys all missed the next definition, which is the closest -- the sharing of a secret. How do we describe commercial software programs? 'Secret bits' right? How are music/movie files much different?
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, if Caldera/SCO had a programmer actually working on the code, as this article suggests, then Caldera/SCO is an equal partner in donating and modifying the SMP code for Linux.
Any bets on how long it will take for SCO to come out and say that the programmer in question was workign without the authority or knowledge of his supervisors?
Their representatives would not be allowed to enter premises of any company, their IP packages would be silently scrapped by routers on the internet.
:-P
Just modify RFC 3514 to require SCO to set the Evil Bit.
is a vulture capital firm. This should be good for them. They already have a history with Corel, having bought Microsoft's shares at 56 cents a piece, taking a 20% stake in the company.
CorelDRAW is still the best illustration package available for PCs today, bar none. Illustrator doesn't hold a candle, IMHO. (This from a guy with many years of experience with both packages in a professional setting).
Yes, the GPL is a contract. Let's look at what we need for a contract:
1) You have to have an offer.
The GPL contains an offer to copy, redistribute and/or modify the code it's applied to.
2) You have to have acceptance. Redistributing the code means that you have accepted the contract (since nothing else gives you the right to redistribute the code).
3) You have to have intention, also referred to as a 'meeting of the minds.' You have to have intended to enter the contract. Redistributing the code under the terms of the GPL indicates that you have a meeting of the minds in and of itself. It's very difficult to prove that you didn't mean to bind yourself to the agreement. Basically, if you exercise your rights under the agreement, no court is going to say that you didn't have a meeting of the minds. It's not like SCO didn't KNOW about the GPL. We have plenty of evidence (including their own packagign) to indicate that they DO know about the GPL.
4) You have to have consideration. The consideration here is that the GPL gives you the right to distribute the code. You, in turn, give consideration to the author to redistribute the code and/or derivative works under the same license. Consideration.
Since we have the four elements of a contract: offer, acceptance, intention, and consdideration, guess that what that means? Yes, under the law we have a CONTRACT.
Thankyouverymuch.
Accidental giving away of copyright is NOT protected once you know about it. If you know about it, and knowingly continue to distribute the code, you are failing to mitigate your own damages, and more, you're agreeing to the terms of the GPL implicitly.
Sorry, but it just doesn't work if they are STILL distributing GPL code, well after they became aware of the problems.
Paragraph 7 is not an out. If you can't distribute under the GPL, you can't distribute at all. Which means that they can't distribute Linux in ANY FORM.
From the GPL:
If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
meaning that even if they win they cannot distribute the binary-only version of Linux they are distributing, as announced in the article. Hence, as I mentioned before, they are currently violating the GPL. Whether or not they did it before is another issue altogether.
Oh yeah, let's not forget that by not following the GPL, they are violating *copyright* law as well, which has recently been criminalized. So strike what I just said about not being a violation of criminal law.
Breach of contract is breaking the law. Not criminal law, but civil law. And with the authority question, you're getting into agency issues. The problem is when the source is STILL sitting on their VERY PUBLIC FTP server, it's hard to say that the people in charge didn't know about it.
Hmm...then what's this this doing on their FTP server? Hmm?
How? I've changed my stance on this somewhat.
The GPL doesn't take away any rights whatsoever. It only grants rights, and places conditions on those rights.
If I give you the binary and source code to a program I wrote, and it contains a copryright notice, you have NO RIGHT to distribute or disclose that source NOR it's binary to third parties. Period. The GPL gives you the right to do that, ONLY ON THE CONDITION that you also distribute the source code and make it available.
It's not defeatable at all. Unless they accept the GPL, they have NO RIGHT to distribute the program. At all. Not because it's GPL, but because it is copyrighted and fully protected by United States Copyright Act of 1976, the Software Act of 1980, and various international treaties including the Berne Convention. Failure to abide by the terms of the GPL is called breach of contract. Pure and simple.
If they own the copyrights to SysV code then they can enforce them as they see fit.
If they can prove that Linux infringes upon those copyrights, then they will be able to charge for its use.
Wrong answer. *They* themselves distributed a Linux kernel, complete with source up until a week or so after they filed the suit, IIRC. If it was infringeing then, then they have relased whatever code might be in there under the terms of the GNU General Public License.
Since the Linux kernel wouldn't by any means be comprised of 100% of their code, that makes any Linux kernel that contains their code a derivative work. Which means that they MUST distribute the source to remain in compliance with license.
In other words, SCO, by releasing a binary-only Linux, is violating the terms of the GNU General Public License, and hence, they are breaking the law.
So you're telling me that if a library offered the full text of copyrighted books online, that that would not be a violation of copyright? I think a few book publishers would take issue with that.
Lack of true need?
:)
When the personal computer revolution hit, there was a lack of a true need for PCs. Nothing that could be done on the early PCs at that time couldn't be done with some other method -- whether manual or electronic.
It came down the killer app. And the killer app was spreadsheets. Nobody in the business world could IMAGINE this day getting by without a spreadsheet.
The Internet wasn't needed either. The killer app -- universal e-mail. Our mail server went down on Friday and there was MASS PANIC! OMG! NO E-MAIL! WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO????
Strange how people seemed to exist before passing around memos and whatnot, isn't it?
You can already do that to an extent on Amazon and on BN.com. For some books, they let you look inside at the Intro, table of contents, and sometimes a chapter or two. You can usually see the liner notes and front and back cover too.
Very cool. I've purchased books based on the ability to look inside the book.
Of course this *could* be great for college paper researchers, looking for a quote or two to stick in a research paper. Depends on how much meat you can really get at.
If it weren't for copyright issues, I'd love to see libraries do something this. You already have the equivalent for magazine articles, but usually you have to either pay or actually go to the library to use their InfoTrac or whatever engine.
Actually, we 'think' that the mobo business is a well-understood one. How many of us know the role of mobos in the Palladium effort? How many u'stand the compulsions of BIOS writers like AMI who act as poodles to gorillas? And lastly, 5 mobos with the same chipset give 5 different benchmark results. How does this happen? In a truly commodity market, the only differentiator is price, not performance or quality.
How many truly look at benchmark results for Motherboards? I know I don't. I look at features. I look at price. But I do look at brand, and I do see your point. Asus and Gigabyte make better boards than Elitegroup, especially in terms of stability. It's just a fact.
Yeah, I guess. Old habits die hard. :-P
Windows XP. Because only Microsoft Windows is the only OS with integrated Slashdot user-killing capabilities!
Exactly. When transitionign to a new platform, any userbase is going to need to figure out how to transition their data over, find or create replacements for Windows apps, etc.
It's not like they're running Linux *just* to run Windows. I'm sure some of their apps will come from the Linux side, and some from the Windows side until their Windows apps are slowly phased out.
After almost 10 years of running Linux, I *still* have a small Windows XP partition for doing stuff like games or certain Windows-only apps. I spend the *majority* of my time in Linux, sure, this is still a very Windows-centric world.
No, the RIAA will now believe that IPv6 is a tool for pirates and file sharers and will lobby congress to have it remove, resulting in the ultimate and untimely death of the Internet due to running out of IP addresses. ;)
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly downloaded Freenet in a fury and it was suddenly silenced. :-P
Do any open source projects get audited for ISO 9001 compliance?
Who would pay for it? ISO 9001 auditing is VERY expensive.
Ummm, not all of have been mastering DVDs since 1999. I've posed this question in comments several times on Slashdot and have gotten a variety of answers.
;)
+R/RW proponents seem to think that +RW is more compatible than -R/-RW, and that it will be the standard that wins. OTOH, CDRINFO seems to be saying that *both* formats seem to have wide backing in the industry, and that the -R and -RW formats are more compatible than their + counterparts. The media for both are widely available cheaply, but -R/-RW being slightly cheaper than +R/RW
The article also points out that there seems to be a group of +R/+RW fanboys out there. Whether these guys are really zealots, or it's just astroturfing from Phillips, one can only guess.
CDRinfo has been fair and objective, and their methods seem fairly scientific. I applaud them, and say "It's about frickin' time!"
Uhhh... you forgot:
User6: It's the goats guy.
User7: Tubgirl
User8: It's a picture of *BSD dying
User9: ummm...that would be *GNU*/inkblot
UserA: errr...that one's a Mac G4, that's Mac G5, iMac, TiBook, alBook, it's the OS X logo...
UserB: that's a server getting slashdotted!
You guys all missed the next definition, which is the closest -- the sharing of a secret. How do we describe commercial software programs? 'Secret bits' right? How are music/movie files much different?