Yes, I looked at it. It's clearly a satirical site and thoroughly anti-MS if you scratch the surface. I mean, they even have a link to the mugshots of Bill Gates from the time he got arrested in '77 on their front page.
First thing that I tried was a search for "windows virus".
Results: nothing but anti-virus software ads.
Well, almost nothing. There is one actual, real-life virus mentioned in the top ten. Oddly enough, it's CNN.com - Virus That Infects Windows and Linux Identified. Incredible. All those zillions of Microsoft-only viruses and a search for "Windows virus" identifies the one virus that can also attack Linux.
I have read the GPL. Many times. I'm not saying I understand it all, especially in the context of the US legal system, but ealbers' question is perfectly legitimate:
7. 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. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Seems clear enough to me. Exactly why do SCO feel they are allowed to distribute a GPL-d work with these onerous licensing conditions, that do not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program, slapped on top? They should be refraining entirely.
But does the company that bought the license obtain all the usual rights under the GPL, should they wish to distribute further? I mean, the GPL states that if you can't distribute so as to satisfy both the GPL and any other license encumbrances that apply, you can't distribute at all. On the other hand, this license may well be a steaming pile that doesn't actually impose any (legal) encumbrances. Do you receive the usual license from the original copyright holder or not under these circumstances?
Though if it is the Beast, I doubt they'll be doing much redistribution anyway.
Does that fortune 500 company look like a complete fool?
No, because they're anonymous.
Oddly enough, this story hit at exactly three minutes past two, just as SCO stock was tanking heavily. No mention of the company's name... or how many licenses they bought... or how much they paid for them.
Microsoft made plenty of noise about opening a Linux test laboratory. Obviously they need to acquire whatever licenses may be required to make those Linux installations legal. We're supposed to make the connection. It just gives them "plausible deniability" when the SCO ship finally goes down. Because when it does, MS won't want to be the last rat off, looking, as you say, like a complete fool. All those sneery articles in the trade press - no thanks.
Come on. It's a scam and we all know it. And so does this enigmatic "Fortune 500" company. Think that they employ idiots?
Depends how they "get on their ass". Going in telling them what a prize bunch of idiots they are is, I agree, not going to win hearts and minds. On the other hand, an approach along the lines of "we notice that your boxes are preinstalled with an inferior version of Linux in a foreign language - why not use this modern version that speaks English?" retains all the advantages that you cite. And improves the chance that the customer goes away with a positive impression of Linux.
Nonetheless, the original poster makes a valid point. In the Yahoo story linked from the main page, both HP and IBM are quite evasive when Bruce Perens asks for a written assurance that they will not sue open-source developers. IBM is not our friend. It's interests happen to be aligned with the Linux community on this issue, but ultimately they are a business with interests of their own and a responsibility (as they see it) to no-one but their shareholders. Perens is quite right: software patents are dangerous for free software.
You'd collect fifty dollars if you were lucky. But let's assume that your fundraising skills far surpass my own, and that you get enough shares for this plan to come to fruition.
Once the disputed IP assets (whatever they might be) were distributed and the various shyster practices halted, the value of SCO shares would return to their true market value, i.e. approximately zero.
So all the people who had bought the shares would be out of pocket. Where has their money gone? Why, into the wallets of the current owners of SCO.
So you'd effectively be paying off the blackmailers. Do you think that this would have the effect of discouraging future scams along the same lines?
No thanks. I wouldn't give these bastards a penny.
(This assumes that there is no merit whatsoever to SCO's case. That's for a court to decide of course. I'll wager that the only way this will get to court is when someone takes SCO there. Despite their posturing, I don't believe SCO have the slightest intention or desire to see the inside of a courtroom. The only instance of them being forced to put up or shut up so far has been in Germany. The result? You don't need to ask.)
It's tempting, very tempting, but I think it would be a counterproductive thing to do.
It would be playing into the hands of the fudmongers. If the rumours are to be believed, the current shenanigans are already causing some businesses to be wary of further Linux adoption (note that I said "if": I don't necessarily believe that to be the case). Would more lawsuits flying around help? Depends whether you think there is any such thing as bad publicity I suppose.
It's as plain as my nose that SCO have one goal and one goal only: to maximise the amount of generated heat and publicity. Look how they release their material in carefully timed dollops, to enormous fanfare. Look at how, when this material is examined more closely, there is very little substance to it. Now look at the substantive evidence behind their claims... oh!
They're relying on the hot air. When the hot air runs out, the SCO balloon will deflate. Don't play their game.
SCO btw have another problem. Their NDA can't forbid redistribution of the GPL code. If they distribute Linux code under their NDA they are violating the license so committing an offence themselves 8)
If only. Unfortunately, they'll probably distribute it under "fair use" rather than the GPL.
Suppose a court decides that any release by SCO of Unix cpde under the GPL doesn't alter SCO's rights regarding that code; in effect, saying the GPL cannot be enforced. What then for the GPL?
Now where exactly does the GPL claim to alter SCO's rights regarding their own code? Nowhere that I can see.
Still, for the sake of debate, let's assume that the GPL is found to be unenforceable. That will place SCO in the same position as if they had never accepted the license at all:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
So the court says that the GPL cannot be enforced. Are they going to say that copyright law cannot be enforced? The GPL and only the GPL is what gives SCO the right to distribute all the code that they didn't write.
Suppose the court rules that only section 7 cannot be enforced, section 7 being:
7. 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. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Then things might be a little stickier. But to get this situation, you would have to argue that SCO can release their code under the GPL, but deny others the rights of modification, distribution, etc. that the GPL allows. This is clearly the opposite of the explicit intent of the GPL. I would argue that it effectively renders the whole license unenforceable --- leaving us back where we were three paragraphs ago.
Incidentally, if SCO were to show that they inadvertly distributed the alleged "tainted" code themselves under the GPL in good faith, not realising at the time that their own stolen code was in the kernel, I would expect a court to be sympathetic. However, they can hardly complain if others also use, in good faith, the code that they themselves distributed. A court might order that further distribution of their code should stop, but... a billion dollars in damages. Is this some kind of joke? If anything, the damages should go the other way as Red Hat & co. incur the costs of repairing SCO's mistake and removing the code. Furthermore, SCO have refused to tell anyone exactly what code they believe to be stolen, again making it impossible for anyone to stop infringing.
I can only wonder why.
Re:Just in: Possible Fatal blow to SCO from Lindow
on
SCO vs Linux.. Continued
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I couldn't read the link.
But if what you say is true, the consequence is more likely to be that Lindows can no longer distribute, rather than "the kernel is cleared for all". Consider section 7 of the GPL:
7. 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. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
But I'm not worrying yet. SCO have still to show any evidence of their claims. Nor are they coming up with any convincing reasons why they haven't provided that evidence.
The primacy of schedule and cost over quality. Its an old management addage that you only get to pick 2.
Can't agree with that one. I don't have my Fred Brooks handy, but I recall he says something like "No. Focus on quality and productivity will follow". He's dead right too.
6) So the debugger should be able to wrestle a process away from the processor without previously having linked into it, and then map memory locations to variables and procedures? That would be impressive.
Impressive if your code was compiled to machine code.
GDB manages this without a problem (look up "attach to running process" in the help).
Much of the software used on a typical Unix system is not application software at all; it's server software and it's free. Most of the commonly used application software is also free. The software that is paid for on Unix system tends to be specialised and expensive. I'm thinking of things like CAD systems, rendering software, fault-tolerant databases.
Unless I have read it the wrong way around, "lots of people pirate software, and lot of those people are percieved to be ""hackers"", and that a lot of ""hackers"" are percieved to be Linux users" is essentially an assertion that software pirates are perceived to be Linux users. I don't see much evidence that Linux users pirate software any more than users of any other operating system. Certainly no reason to believe that the product "will be pirated on a massive scale".
Whether Microsoft would sell many copies of Office for Linux is, of course, another question entirely...
Interesting paper. Since the GPL only grants permission to do things that would otherwise be forbidden under copyright law, I wonder if linking proprietary code to a GPL library could be defended as "fair use"? Ignoring the GPL license. Much the same as "reading it" could be considered fair use of a copyrighted book.
If so, would that mean that linking to any software library, whether proprietary or not and whether validly licensed or not could also be defended as fair use?
It is fallacious to argue that rejecting one law on moral grounds implies that any different law should also be rejected on the same grounds.
Both copyright and patent laws, as applied to software, are intended to protect creations. Among the arguments commonly made against software patents are that they are awarded too broadly and cover inventions that are the natural and obvious solution to any practitioner faced by a particular problem, that they describe inventions which have been widely used in the past but not patented, or that they are trivial.
None of these arguments applies to copyright.
In any case, the two areas of law are only peripherally related.
What if someone took a GPL program, modified it and sold it without offering the source in any form and simply said "I don't know what you mean, I didn't sign any contract where I agreed to anything as stupid as releasing my part of the code"
Then they would be in breach of copyright law.
The GPL does not place any restrictions on anyone that are not already in place thanks to copyright law. Instead, it grants extra rights (the right to copy and redistribute) that would otherwise be prohibited by copyright.
In this sense, it is the opposite of most commercial EULAs.
Why not read it? "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to copy, distribute or modify the OC..."
If you "set hidden" then you no longer have to save the current file when opening the next one.
This means that your funky buffer-switching commands, like "ls", "badd file" and "buffer n", or the keyboard shortcut "n CTRL-^" all work the way you want them to.
You get warned if you try and exit with any hidden files unsaved.
Have you looked at the game "Asheron's Call"? It implements an allegiance system which means players group themselves into social hierarchies in a similar manner to that which you suggest. Granted, it's not quite as grand as the scenario you paint, but it seems to work quite well and there's some good use of plot to boot.
Z
Possibly more than that even. My currently running X server is showing a usage of 54M. I am using a Voodoo3 2000, which has 16M RAM. However, the amount of address space which is actually mapped is three times as much - 48M.
Of course, this still means 6M for the server itself, which is a lot compared to, say, a ZX81 in low-memory mode:)
Slashdot Mirror
has anyone actually looked at linuxsucks.com
Yes, I looked at it. It's clearly a satirical site and thoroughly anti-MS if you scratch the surface. I mean, they even have a link to the mugshots of Bill Gates from the time he got arrested in '77 on their front page.
Maybe I misinterpreted.
First thing that I tried was a search for "windows virus".
Results: nothing but anti-virus software ads.
Well, almost nothing. There is one actual, real-life virus mentioned in the top ten. Oddly enough, it's CNN.com - Virus That Infects Windows and Linux Identified. Incredible. All those zillions of Microsoft-only viruses and a search for "Windows virus" identifies the one virus that can also attack Linux.
I have read the GPL. Many times. I'm not saying I understand it all, especially in the context of the US legal system, but ealbers' question is perfectly legitimate:
7. 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. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Seems clear enough to me. Exactly why do SCO feel they are allowed to distribute a GPL-d work with these onerous licensing conditions, that do not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program, slapped on top? They should be refraining entirely.
But does the company that bought the license obtain all the usual rights under the GPL, should they wish to distribute further? I mean, the GPL states that if you can't distribute so as to satisfy both the GPL and any other license encumbrances that apply, you can't distribute at all. On the other hand, this license may well be a steaming pile that doesn't actually impose any (legal) encumbrances. Do you receive the usual license from the original copyright holder or not under these circumstances?
Though if it is the Beast, I doubt they'll be doing much redistribution anyway.
Does that fortune 500 company look like a complete fool?
... or how many licenses they bought ... or how much they paid for them.
No, because they're anonymous.
Oddly enough, this story hit at exactly three minutes past two, just as SCO stock was tanking heavily. No mention of the company's name
Microsoft made plenty of noise about opening a Linux test laboratory. Obviously they need to acquire whatever licenses may be required to make those Linux installations legal. We're supposed to make the connection. It just gives them "plausible deniability" when the SCO ship finally goes down. Because when it does, MS won't want to be the last rat off, looking, as you say, like a complete fool. All those sneery articles in the trade press - no thanks.
Come on. It's a scam and we all know it. And so does this enigmatic "Fortune 500" company. Think that they employ idiots?
I must switch to a thicker grade of tinfoil.
Depends how they "get on their ass". Going in telling them what a prize bunch of idiots they are is, I agree, not going to win hearts and minds. On the other hand, an approach along the lines of "we notice that your boxes are preinstalled with an inferior version of Linux in a foreign language - why not use this modern version that speaks English?" retains all the advantages that you cite. And improves the chance that the customer goes away with a positive impression of Linux.
Nonetheless, the original poster makes a valid point. In the Yahoo story linked from the main page, both HP and IBM are quite evasive when Bruce Perens asks for a written assurance that they will not sue open-source developers. IBM is not our friend. It's interests happen to be aligned with the Linux community on this issue, but ultimately they are a business with interests of their own and a responsibility (as they see it) to no-one but their shareholders. Perens is quite right: software patents are dangerous for free software.
And IBM have a history of using patents aggressively when it suits them to do so.
You'd collect fifty dollars if you were lucky. But let's assume that your fundraising skills far surpass my own, and that you get enough shares for this plan to come to fruition.
Once the disputed IP assets (whatever they might be) were distributed and the various shyster practices halted, the value of SCO shares would return to their true market value, i.e. approximately zero.
So all the people who had bought the shares would be out of pocket. Where has their money gone? Why, into the wallets of the current owners of SCO.
So you'd effectively be paying off the blackmailers. Do you think that this would have the effect of discouraging future scams along the same lines?
No thanks. I wouldn't give these bastards a penny.
(This assumes that there is no merit whatsoever to SCO's case. That's for a court to decide of course. I'll wager that the only way this will get to court is when someone takes SCO there. Despite their posturing, I don't believe SCO have the slightest intention or desire to see the inside of a courtroom. The only instance of them being forced to put up or shut up so far has been in Germany. The result? You don't need to ask.)
It's tempting, very tempting, but I think it would be a counterproductive thing to do.
... oh!
It would be playing into the hands of the fudmongers. If the rumours are to be believed, the current shenanigans are already causing some businesses to be wary of further Linux adoption (note that I said "if": I don't necessarily believe that to be the case). Would more lawsuits flying around help? Depends whether you think there is any such thing as bad publicity I suppose.
It's as plain as my nose that SCO have one goal and one goal only: to maximise the amount of generated heat and publicity. Look how they release their material in carefully timed dollops, to enormous fanfare. Look at how, when this material is examined more closely, there is very little substance to it. Now look at the substantive evidence behind their claims
They're relying on the hot air. When the hot air runs out, the SCO balloon will deflate. Don't play their game.
SCO btw have another problem. Their NDA can't forbid redistribution of the GPL code. If they distribute Linux code under their NDA they are violating the license so committing an offence themselves 8)
If only. Unfortunately, they'll probably distribute it under "fair use" rather than the GPL.
I suppose that's why you were smiling...
Suppose a court decides that any release by SCO of Unix cpde under the GPL doesn't alter SCO's rights regarding that code; in effect, saying the GPL cannot be enforced. What then for the GPL?
... a billion dollars in damages. Is this some kind of joke? If anything, the damages should go the other way as Red Hat & co. incur the costs of repairing SCO's mistake and removing the code. Furthermore, SCO have refused to tell anyone exactly what code they believe to be stolen, again making it impossible for anyone to stop infringing.
Now where exactly does the GPL claim to alter SCO's rights regarding their own code? Nowhere that I can see.
Still, for the sake of debate, let's assume that the GPL is found to be unenforceable. That will place SCO in the same position as if they had never accepted the license at all:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.
So the court says that the GPL cannot be enforced. Are they going to say that copyright law cannot be enforced? The GPL and only the GPL is what gives SCO the right to distribute all the code that they didn't write.
Suppose the court rules that only section 7 cannot be enforced, section 7 being:
7. 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. For example, if a patent
license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Then things might be a little stickier. But to get this situation, you would have to argue that SCO can release their code under the GPL, but deny others the rights of modification, distribution, etc. that the GPL allows. This is clearly the opposite of the explicit intent of the GPL. I would argue that it effectively renders the whole license unenforceable --- leaving us back where we were three paragraphs ago.
Incidentally, if SCO were to show that they inadvertly distributed the alleged "tainted" code themselves under the GPL in good faith, not realising at the time that their own stolen code was in the kernel, I would expect a court to be sympathetic. However, they can hardly complain if others also use, in good faith, the code that they themselves distributed. A court might order that further distribution of their code should stop, but
I can only wonder why.
I couldn't read the link.
But if what you say is true, the consequence is more likely to be that Lindows can no longer distribute, rather than "the kernel is cleared for all". Consider section 7 of the GPL:
7. 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. For example, if a patent
license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
But I'm not worrying yet. SCO have still to show any evidence of their claims. Nor are they coming up with any convincing reasons why they haven't provided that evidence.
It does seem pretty standard. It also seems pretty superfluous. Any statement of fact can only be "to [ones] knowledge".
"Paris is the capital of France."
"To my knowledge, Paris is the capital of France."
Not much of a qualifier.I suppose you could argue that it implies a degree of uncertainty on the speaker's part.
The primacy of schedule and cost over quality. Its an old management addage that you only get to pick 2.
Can't agree with that one. I don't have my Fred Brooks handy, but I recall he says something like "No. Focus on quality and productivity will follow". He's dead right too.
You are spot on with the other three though.
Impressive if your code was compiled to machine code.
GDB manages this without a problem (look up "attach to running process" in the help).
That's not quite true...
Much of the software used on a typical Unix system is not application software at all; it's server software and it's free. Most of the commonly used application software is also free. The software that is paid for on Unix system tends to be specialised and expensive. I'm thinking of things like CAD systems, rendering software, fault-tolerant databases.
Unless I have read it the wrong way around, "lots of people pirate software, and lot of those people are percieved to be ""hackers"", and that a lot of ""hackers"" are percieved to be Linux users" is essentially an assertion that software pirates are perceived to be Linux users. I don't see much evidence that Linux users pirate software any more than users of any other operating system. Certainly no reason to believe that the product "will be pirated on a massive scale".
Whether Microsoft would sell many copies of Office for Linux is, of course, another question entirely...
Well, no it isn't actually. The BBC is reporting what Mr Clover said. Not at all the same thing as "the BBC recommends".
Sigh.
Interesting paper. Since the GPL only grants permission to do things that would otherwise be forbidden under copyright law, I wonder if linking proprietary code to a GPL library could be defended as "fair use"? Ignoring the GPL license. Much the same as "reading it" could be considered fair use of a copyrighted book.
If so, would that mean that linking to any software library, whether proprietary or not and whether validly licensed or not could also be defended as fair use?
I am no lawyer, natch.
It is fallacious to argue that rejecting one law on moral grounds implies that any different law should also be rejected on the same grounds.
Both copyright and patent laws, as applied to software, are intended to protect creations. Among the arguments commonly made against software patents are that they are awarded too broadly and cover inventions that are the natural and obvious solution to any practitioner faced by a particular problem, that they describe inventions which have been widely used in the past but not patented, or that they are trivial.
None of these arguments applies to copyright. In any case, the two areas of law are only peripherally related.
Then they would be in breach of copyright law.
The GPL does not place any restrictions on anyone that are not already in place thanks to copyright law. Instead, it grants extra rights (the right to copy and redistribute) that would otherwise be prohibited by copyright.
In this sense, it is the opposite of most commercial EULAs.
Why not read it? "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to copy, distribute or modify the OC..."
This means that your funky buffer-switching commands, like "ls", "badd file" and "buffer n", or the keyboard shortcut "n CTRL-^" all work the way you want them to.
You get warned if you try and exit with any hidden files unsaved.
More people are killed by speeding drivers than are murdered.
Z
Have you looked at the game "Asheron's Call"? It implements an allegiance system which means players group themselves into social hierarchies in a similar manner to that which you suggest. Granted, it's not quite as grand as the scenario you paint, but it seems to work quite well and there's some good use of plot to boot. Z
Of course, this still means 6M for the server itself, which is a lot compared to, say, a ZX81 in low-memory mode