If you're implying that the modern English usage of veteran is nearer to "experienced" then you're right, but the word originally derives from the Latin vetus, meaning "old". So I think OP's point is fair.
Although that never went to court. In fact, the action was limited to one letter from each party.
Kurt Denke's response to Monster was legendary, and can be found here.
Notice that he doesn't admit, concede, claim or offer anything at all. Just asks for a proper claim to be stated, and makes a few salient observations.
In your position, I'd get a lawyer like Kurt Denke to write my response to the BSA.
That means if you copy... their code, you must give the nessus people the changes you made or be liable under standard copyright law.
Not quite true. The GPL does not oblige you to give the changes you made to the Nessus authors - it obliges you to give the source including the changes to the people to whom you distribute the binary. Your customers. This distinction can be significant if the product that includes your binary costs a lot of money. The code must still be licensed under the GPL of course, so there's nothing to stop your customers passing the code on to Nessus if they choose to.
And the key word is "distribute" not "sell". Renting won't get you off the hook.
Not entirely sure that this undermines your argument, but you do need to reconsider the premises.
It would be extra work - much extra work - for Microsoft to make Visual Studio produce code for a PowerPC or run on OS X; not so much on the development side perhaps, but certainly on the support and marketing side. Unfair use of monopoly power might be a factor in the business decision not to do so, but it could be easily explained as a lack of market demand.
But Intel seem to be putting a lot of extra work to make the code not work properly on an AMD chip. I doubt there's much market demand for that. So it makes a much more compelling case that Intel are unfairly abusing their monopoly position to harm a competitor.
Why do you feel that the two situations are equivalent?
I used to repair these things for a living. It's not that players don't love them; it's the arcades who hate them. A pinball needs regular and frequent maintenance. Without that, the machine's gameplay suffers and the players go away. Then the arcade sees that the machine is making no money - they rarely seem to notice the link with not maintaining it.
Arcades would rather stick two video cabinets in the same spot that need practically no maintenance. I could never have made a living repairing those!
...it was impossible to have a map with 5 colors, all of which were touching one another, in the first place
That's correct, I think. But it's not the same assertion made in the four-colour theorem, which is that you can always color the map using no more than four colours.
Now since the four-colour theorem is actually true, I can't provide a counterexample, but imagine that you are busy colouring in your map and you get to the last area, which is bordered by at least four other areas, each of which is coloured differently. You are stuffed. Like I said, the four-colour theorem is true, so this just means you made a mistake somewhere with the rest of your colouring in - but proving that is difficult, and it's not the same as proving you can't have a map with five areas that all touch each other.
SCO hold no patents. I assume you're referring to the Unix source code - yes, they do have access to that but so do IBM. IBM will have known the meritless nature of this lawsuit since it was filed - they must have researched the provenance of the Linux codebase themselves before deciding to make it a cornerstone of their business. Caldera used to have a reasonably nice Linux distribution, but I don't think you can fairly describe them as one of the founding forces behind Linux.
I agree that it will be very difficult to use scare tactics to cause companies to shell out for Linux licences in future though.
Yes he does own the Linux trademark, but Linuxworld are not infringing it. Their site is all about Linux.
If they were discussing some other operating system and passing it off as Linux, Linus could put a stop to that. For example, if they were really a QNX site, but insisted on referring to it as a "flavour of Linux". But they ain't, so he can't.
No. A licence is a unilateral grant of permission from one party to another. A contract is bilateral: both parties agree to provide something to the other.
So the GPL is a licence, because it grants the licencee permission to do something that would otherwise be forbidden by copyright law; i.e. redistribute the software under certain conditions. No reciprocal obligation is incurred. The user of GPL software is free to accept or decline the licence offer and may use the software in any case.
It really is as simple as that. I don't know why Microsoft find it so confusing.
Something to think about: when SCO tanks, somebody will buy the "UNIX intellectual property". Who's likely to do that? Sun? Microsoft? Red Hat?
I believe the so-called "Unix IP" is held as collateral on loans made by the Canopy Group (SCO's owner) to SCO, and is intended to revert to Canopy when SCO goes belly-up.
Whether this ploy will be successful is debatable. IBM may be able to pierce the corporate veil surrounding Canopy for a number of reasons. For example, Computer Associates were given SCO "Linux IP" licences (which they didn't ask for) as part of a settlement with the Canopy Group, which calls into question the arms-length relationship between Canopy and SCO. If that happens, IBM are likely to end up as the new owners of Canopy when all this is done.
It's really a moot point as far as Linux is concerned though. Firstly, SCO have so far been unable to show clear title to the "Unix IP". My money says they won't be able to. Secondly, the terms of the original AT&T licence agreement state that Unix licensees own any modifications that they make themselves, putting a big hole in the SCO "derived works" argument. And finally, the SysV stuff isn't present in Linux anyway. Anyone who disagrees with that statement is invited to provide file names and line numbers where the infringing code can be found.
I think the fundamental point is Party A is pretty much certain. Ok, so why are they certain? Because they have some evidence presumably. For example, a disassembly of Party B's binary reveals a set of arbitrary strings identical to those in Party A's code.
SCO, on the other hand, appear to have nothing other than the assumption that Linux couldn't possibly be as good as it is today without stealing their stuff. That might fly as a minor piece of circumstantial evidence to support other more substantial grounds, but on its own? No chance.
Or put another way, SCO have no reason even to be more than slightly suspicious of any wrongdoing, let alone "pretty much certain".
Also, this would be an EXCELLENT time for Novell to step up and put their money where their acquisition is, and back their SuSE purchase by getting in on this as well.
Claiming copyright on this list of files is so nonsensical, it must be a distraction tactic.
After all, SCO have already stated that 2.2 does not infringe.
So what are we supposed to not be looking at at the moment? Oh look, the quarterly financial statement just got published. And even booking revunue on shipment rather than payment (along with other dodgy accounting practices) couldn't stop a net loss.
Something crooked is going on here. This letter is an irrelevance.
One final point which no-one seems to have mentioned yet: IBM don't supply Linux. You want to run Linux on IBM hardware, you get it from Red Hat, SuSE, etc. IBM have no Linux distribution of their own.
All the argument that SCO has GPL'd any and all SCO-owned code in the kernel by the mere fact that they distributed Caldera Open Linux is very interesting in an academic sort of way, but I would really like to see them try to clear the second hurdle of their claim, which is "Who is responsible for the presence of the infringing code?"
Huh. I'd like to see them clear the first hurdle: "Show that there is infringing code."
Yes, I know that you assumed it for the sake of the argument. The more that I follow this case, the more unlikely I believe it to be.
Hehe. I don't think I get 99.999% success rate opening Office documents with the same copy of the application that created it, on the same computer, five minutes after saving. 'Specially if it has a Visio diagram or similar embedded in it - time to dig out Open Office for a bit of MS Office document repair.
Seriously, 99.999% would be more than adequate. Not that Open Office is that good, but around 98% would probably be fine. I'd say that OO was somewhere in the 90% to 95% at the moment.
Alternatively, their suppliers will be forced to install Open Office so that they can read and reply to similar material coming from Ford.
Who does the most purchasing? Who spends most time in the "customer" role in business-to-business transactions with Ford? Who, in other words, has most clout - Ford, their suppliers, or their customers?
I have been watching the SCO stock price for the last couple of months. When the SCO forum code was debunked, I looked expecting to see the stock price fall off a cliff. That's how it works isn't it? company suffers major bad news, stock price falls.
But no. The stock price went up, up and away, on blocks of very small shares.
It's clearly being heavily manipulated. But why? The best theory I've seen is that amateur investors are encouraged to sell this stock short, on the assumption that it's going to zero one way or another. Good assumption, but naive investment strategy. What happens then is that the price is manipulated way up. Eventually the short sellers are forced to buy at the higher market price to stop their losses. Who do they buy from? Why, the insiders and stock manipulators, who then laugh all the way to the bank.
Go and have a look on the Yahoo finance forums. The scam is so obvious, it's unbelievable that the mainstream media aren't picking up on it.
Re:How can one steal lines of code?
on
Back To SCO
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
What idiot modded this rather insightful comment "troll"?
Slashdot Mirror
If you're implying that the modern English usage of veteran is nearer to "experienced" then you're right, but the word originally derives from the Latin vetus, meaning "old". So I think OP's point is fair.
That is a really good idea, and not one I've seen before. I'm stealing it!
Kurt Denke's response to Monster was legendary, and can be found here.
Notice that he doesn't admit, concede, claim or offer anything at all. Just asks for a proper claim to be stated, and makes a few salient observations.
In your position, I'd get a lawyer like Kurt Denke to write my response to the BSA.
Not quite true. The GPL does not oblige you to give the changes you made to the Nessus authors - it obliges you to give the source including the changes to the people to whom you distribute the binary. Your customers. This distinction can be significant if the product that includes your binary costs a lot of money. The code must still be licensed under the GPL of course, so there's nothing to stop your customers passing the code on to Nessus if they choose to.
And the key word is "distribute" not "sell". Renting won't get you off the hook.
Not entirely sure that this undermines your argument, but you do need to reconsider the premises.
But Intel seem to be putting a lot of extra work to make the code not work properly on an AMD chip. I doubt there's much market demand for that. So it makes a much more compelling case that Intel are unfairly abusing their monopoly position to harm a competitor.
Why do you feel that the two situations are equivalent?
You can't "inadvertently" GPL your code. You might inadvertently commit a copyright infringement, but that's not the same thing at all.
Do companies have the same worries about inadvertently incorporating some of Microsoft's "Shared Source" into their own products? If not, why not?
Arcades would rather stick two video cabinets in the same spot that need practically no maintenance. I could never have made a living repairing those!
That's correct, I think. But it's not the same assertion made in the four-colour theorem, which is that you can always color the map using no more than four colours.
Now since the four-colour theorem is actually true, I can't provide a counterexample, but imagine that you are busy colouring in your map and you get to the last area, which is bordered by at least four other areas, each of which is coloured differently. You are stuffed. Like I said, the four-colour theorem is true, so this just means you made a mistake somewhere with the rest of your colouring in - but proving that is difficult, and it's not the same as proving you can't have a map with five areas that all touch each other.
I agree that it will be very difficult to use scare tactics to cause companies to shell out for Linux licences in future though.
Except that this has already happened once, back in 1999.
WINE is not GPL
If they were discussing some other operating system and passing it off as Linux, Linus could put a stop to that. For example, if they were really a QNX site, but insisted on referring to it as a "flavour of Linux". But they ain't, so he can't.
So the GPL is a licence, because it grants the licencee permission to do something that would otherwise be forbidden by copyright law; i.e. redistribute the software under certain conditions. No reciprocal obligation is incurred. The user of GPL software is free to accept or decline the licence offer and may use the software in any case.
It really is as simple as that. I don't know why Microsoft find it so confusing.
I believe the so-called "Unix IP" is held as collateral on loans made by the Canopy Group (SCO's owner) to SCO, and is intended to revert to Canopy when SCO goes belly-up.
Whether this ploy will be successful is debatable. IBM may be able to pierce the corporate veil surrounding Canopy for a number of reasons. For example, Computer Associates were given SCO "Linux IP" licences (which they didn't ask for) as part of a settlement with the Canopy Group, which calls into question the arms-length relationship between Canopy and SCO. If that happens, IBM are likely to end up as the new owners of Canopy when all this is done.
It's really a moot point as far as Linux is concerned though. Firstly, SCO have so far been unable to show clear title to the "Unix IP". My money says they won't be able to. Secondly, the terms of the original AT&T licence agreement state that Unix licensees own any modifications that they make themselves, putting a big hole in the SCO "derived works" argument. And finally, the SysV stuff isn't present in Linux anyway. Anyone who disagrees with that statement is invited to provide file names and line numbers where the infringing code can be found.
So who cares where the "Unix IP" ends up? Not me.
SCO, on the other hand, appear to have nothing other than the assumption that Linux couldn't possibly be as good as it is today without stealing their stuff. That might fly as a minor piece of circumstantial evidence to support other more substantial grounds, but on its own? No chance.
Or put another way, SCO have no reason even to be more than slightly suspicious of any wrongdoing, let alone "pretty much certain".
They just did.
That would be 'vsound'. Can use it to capture Real Audio streams.
Claiming copyright on this list of files is so nonsensical, it must be a distraction tactic.
After all, SCO have already stated that 2.2 does not infringe.
So what are we supposed to not be looking at at the moment? Oh look, the quarterly financial statement just got published. And even booking revunue on shipment rather than payment (along with other dodgy accounting practices) couldn't stop a net loss.
Something crooked is going on here. This letter is an irrelevance.
One final point which no-one seems to have mentioned yet: IBM don't supply Linux. You want to run Linux on IBM hardware, you get it from Red Hat, SuSE, etc. IBM have no Linux distribution of their own.
No, Macbeth was written about one year after the Gunpowder plot took place.
Link
All the argument that SCO has GPL'd any and all SCO-owned code in the kernel by the mere fact that they distributed Caldera Open Linux is very interesting in an academic sort of way, but I would really like to see them try to clear the second hurdle of their claim, which is "Who is responsible for the presence of the infringing code?"
Huh. I'd like to see them clear the first hurdle: "Show that there is infringing code."
Yes, I know that you assumed it for the sake of the argument. The more that I follow this case, the more unlikely I believe it to be.
Z
Hehe. I don't think I get 99.999% success rate opening Office documents with the same copy of the application that created it, on the same computer, five minutes after saving. 'Specially if it has a Visio diagram or similar embedded in it - time to dig out Open Office for a bit of MS Office document repair.
Seriously, 99.999% would be more than adequate. Not that Open Office is that good, but around 98% would probably be fine. I'd say that OO was somewhere in the 90% to 95% at the moment.
Alternatively, their suppliers will be forced to install Open Office so that they can read and reply to similar material coming from Ford.
Who does the most purchasing? Who spends most time in the "customer" role in business-to-business transactions with Ford? Who, in other words, has most clout - Ford, their suppliers, or their customers?
Network effects work in more than one direction.
I have been watching the SCO stock price for the last couple of months. When the SCO forum code was debunked, I looked expecting to see the stock price fall off a cliff. That's how it works isn't it? company suffers major bad news, stock price falls.
But no. The stock price went up, up and away, on blocks of very small shares.
It's clearly being heavily manipulated. But why? The best theory I've seen is that amateur investors are encouraged to sell this stock short, on the assumption that it's going to zero one way or another. Good assumption, but naive investment strategy. What happens then is that the price is manipulated way up. Eventually the short sellers are forced to buy at the higher market price to stop their losses. Who do they buy from? Why, the insiders and stock manipulators, who then laugh all the way to the bank.
Go and have a look on the Yahoo finance forums. The scam is so obvious, it's unbelievable that the mainstream media aren't picking up on it.
What idiot modded this rather insightful comment "troll"?