"If the customer does not accept the terms of this agreement, then it THEN IT MUST NOT USE OR PURCHASE RED HAT ENTERPRISE LINUX . "
This says it all. I looked for anything that limited, modified or in anyway altered this statement's meaning or intent. I couldn't find anything.
If you don't buy you can't use the "software." Period.
Farther down in the license are the words:
"If customer makes a commercial redistribution of the software and (a) it does not fall within an exception provided in Red Hat's Trademark Guidelines, (b) it has not entered into a redistribution agreement with Red Hat, or (c) it do not have a trademark license agreement with Red Hat, then the customer must modify the files identified as RedHat-Logos and Anaconda-Images so as to remove all use of images containing the 'Red Hat' trademark or Red Hat's Shadow Man logo. Note that the mere deletion of those files may corrupt the software."
This is no way reassuring. Does this mean that If you try to remove Red Hat's deal the software won't work properly? This sounds a lot like extortion. Definitely an overt threat.
(Misappropriation of Trade Secretsâ"Utah Code Ann. Â13-24-1 et seq.)
105. Plaintiff is the owner of unique know how, concepts, ideas, methodologies, standards, specifications, programming, techniques, UNIX Software Code, object code, architecture, design and schematics that allow UNIX to operate with unmatched extensibility, scalability, reliability and security (hereinafter defined as âoeSCOâ(TM)s Trade Secretsâ). SCOâ(TM)s Trade Secrets provide SCO with an advantage over its competitors.
This pretty much sums up SCO's strategy in their efforts to corral all vulnerable IP under the rubric of a more or less vague notion of "Unix"
Their claims are 'very' broad using words like "know how, concepte, ideas..." It seems as if their theory of the case is that everything even remotely similar to Unix is their IP, a derivitave work so to speak, and that everyone using or developing a Unix-like system should pay royalties to them.
A nice approach if they can pull it off. Given the climate and confusion created by the DMCA, they just might be able to do it.
This is the greatest draw back of efforts to patent and copyright software. Everyone to a greater or lesser degree is vulnerable to extortion from the closed source sector under the guise of "just wanting to get paid for their 'hard work'." There should be minimum standards before a work can be copyrighted and patented. Otherwise every line of code becomes a bone of contention.
Not having to show your whole hand is particularly helpful especially if you can achieve your goals without having to do so.
to ensure that a vendor can optimize delay, denial, and obfuscation aimed at supporting the maximizing of profits. How stupid does this organization think programmers are? We'd have to be "eat up with the dumb*ss" to buy into this scheme.
Now is the time for all good code contributors to come to the aid of their/our Open Source. Particularly those who contributed to the Bell Labs USL project.
Bring us your modules, patches and snippits. Let us see when was when, what was what, and who borrowed from who.
" b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
This means that even if some sections were in violation of SCO's copyright, then SCO still has to license the entire kernel under the GPL because other valid non-SCO copyrights are in there. They can't just pick and choose pieces, or even files, and claim that they are not covered. If they are part of the kernel, then SCO has to consider them to be covered if they want to redistribute. So, SCO either gave their implicit consent to release those sections under the GPL, or they can claim that they are and never were covered by the GPL, which means that SCO was distributing Linux without a license or any other permission to do so. If they can't or won't abide by the terms of the GPL for any reason, then they cannot distribute any of the code. "
To continue this observation, while UNIX was first being developed first by AT&T then AT&T Bell Labs and then USL, many hackers contributed varying amounts of code to the project possibly some with conditions attached.
Where are these people? Don't they have an interest here in their contributions?
Eric Raymond in his OSI Positon paper observes in his flow chart that prior to 1988, "The red arrow from 4.2BSD to System V represents stolen property. AT&T, SCO/Caldera's predecessor in interest, took code from BSD Unix into System V, removing copyright notices and attributions in violation of the Berkeley license."
Where are the folks who authored this code and shouldn't they be entertaing SCO with law suits or do statutes of limitations come into play here and above?
I discovered Slashdot quite by accident. As I recall, many years ago, I was using my favorite search engine plugging in the words "computer news" and lo and behold there befor me was Slashdot.
At first I was impressed by the variety and newness of topics covered. However, reading all the comments was tedious at best. I didn't ever agree with Slashdot's ranking method as many if not most of the posts ranked with 3's to 5's were clearly little more that floatsam. So I just stopped reading them.
I did find Slashdot useful in developing a list of computer related news urls which I now review prior to coming to Slashdot. I continue to come here on a daily basis to see if there are new urls to add to my bookmarks and will continue to do so untill the site puts it's hand out at which point I'll cut Slashdot loose as I did Salon.
I've discovered that I can, many times, find and read articles 'before' they're ever posted on Slashdot. Of particular value are CNet, The Register, The Inquirer, Wired News, and, yes, even Geek.com as many of their stroies are posted days before they make it to Slashdot. Most never make it. The only reason I can think of that this might happen is that the staff at Slashdot do not find the items to be sufficienty news worthy. The deal with Intuit's Turbotax and its use of C-Dilla's DRM technology comes to mind. Geek.com carried it two days befor Slashdot. I'll have to credit Slashdot in that it did cover the DRM matter in a cursory fashion sevral months previously.
Now Slashdot is attempting to create value ephemerally using negative reinforcement. More power to them if they succeed. I've never been impressed by Madison Avenue's efforts to tell me what I might find to be of value. I know value when I see it. No one needs to help guide me; that I should value this over that.
As time goes by I find Slashdot less and less relevant. Slashdot used to be on the bleeding edge. Now it seems to be an also ran. This bodes ill for Slashdot. I do, however, wish Slashdot the best in continued success.
We as consumers are being backed into a corner not of our own making. We're faced with what seems to be the distasteful choice of accepting what we're being force fed or to simply not eat. However, we do not have to accept this false dilemma. We have a third choice. That choice is to purchace goods and services "that strictly meet our needs", not theirs. This is a simple but powerful idea. Marketers always try to tell us what we want because they know best. They "create demand" by manipulating our feelings even though there may be no demand at all. But we can destroy this illusion by asserting our own will and by making the third choice.
The ultimate purpose of putting technology out there is for the user to find the limits, if there are any. Putting road blocks up only frustrates this effort.
Personally I don't give a hoot if any web site needs or uses cookies. They can use them all they want, just keep the g*d damn things off my computer.
There is absolutely NO need for a web site to put their deal on my computer. They can keep all info regarding my visit on "their" computer. When I come back for a visit they can do a "look-up" to see if I've ever been there and then continue doing their stick.
Now of course if they want to put some green in my palm for putting their sh*t on my computer...well now that's another story all together. PhilTR
Lets be clear. RIAA's days are numbered as they are rapidly becoming an anachronism. Record publishers and distributors are no longer necessary in the equation for increasingly an artist can develop and distribute his material far more effectively using other means. The proliferation of good and affordable recording equipment, sophisticated and cheap computers, cost effective (can we say free) web sites, and most importantly the vast proliferation internet search engines makes even the most intricate project affordable for all but the most dire of artists. The artist can set up his own payment method using charge cards or other methods. Only greed and lack of talent bars the door to success for lord only know, the market is there. phil
The fact is, the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted music is illegal.
Not quite. You forgot to mention the small but crucial detail of 'profit.' Read the AHRA of '72 again. This time more carefully. Legally hard drives are not recording devices and mp3's are not music recordings for purposes of AHRA enforcement. That may be unfair or even unfortunate, but its the law. Congress will have to either amend the current law or make a new one. phil
More Than piracy . I've been thinking about the 'copyright' debate because some aspects of it really bother me. Consequently a few questions come to mind. First of all, have either Metallica or any of the others claiming copyright infringement even acknowledged the past authors whose copyrighted works (at least those not owned by lyric mills) were the source of 'inspiration' (I use the word inspiration loosely here) and from whom bits and pieces were borrowed (or possibly just stolen)? Further, have Metallica or any of the others opened their wallets to offer payment to these authors? Finally, are not new ideas and concepts merely recycled, reworked, and in some cases rejuvenated old ideas and concepts, particularly in the case of music and lyrics? . I pose these questions to highlight the hypocrisy that is plainly evident in the machinations of Metallica and other such greedy pukes who would use the money they received while using the works of others (laughably as a source of 'inspiration') to enrich themselves and who make no mention of these authors and their products nor make any effort to pay them for the time and effort that went into producing their products (which probably were also the results of un-reimbursed borrowings and similar such thievery), so that they could be inspired and later reap huge profits. But there is a larger issue here. . With the advent of digital encoding and highly sophisticated encryption technology the concept of 'copyright protection' is entering a new and troubling era particularly with respect to information development and dispersal. Not only can an author now request and receive payment for his work, he can also conceivably dictate where, when, to whom, to what degree and for how long his work will be accessible. Fair use is now moot. Reverse engineering is moot also. Through the use of licensing and similar such schemes an author can force compliance with his wishes as there are many who are looking for a payday and so long as there are deep pockets there will be a day before the bar for the unfortunate as judges are predisposed to look favorably to the claims (some being specious) of authors and they take pains to ensure that lawyers get paid. . Microsoft has given us a peek at just how perverted our world will soon become with what it did with Kerberos taking the work of others, giving it a superficial treatment, then placing it out on the internet, as its own, hidden behind a fig leaf click through agreement, offensive to all, but perfectly legal. Has anyone heard Microsoft offer to pay the open source community for its work? Would MS object if the shoe were on the other foot? Silly question. . Historically Kings and Clergy controlled the development and distribution of information as they owned (and could afford) the scribes. The printing press changed all that and later recording machines and copiers (as well as other technologies) further propelled the dispersal of information to the masses. The internet vigorously pushes the limits of information distribution yet again. . But now technology seems to promise to closed the door or make it difficult for information pass through. For some like Miscosoft who are positioned with deep pockets the new technology is a boon, but for others it will prove a bane as they will no longer have the free and unfettered access to information they once had. Just imagine if you had to pay each and every reference you used for your last term paper. It gets worse. . Imagine you had to pay each reference every time you presented a paper or gave a presentation. Or each time you made a back-up (a new copy of an original). It's now possible to monitor the copies you save to disk for later reading. How about paying each time you open the file? It can become bizarre. . With the wiring of homes to the internet and the development of smart appliances inventors can now entertain the possibly of requiring a fee/royalty for each usage. For example each time you open a smart refrigerator, use a toaster oven, microwave, even flush your crapper information regarding your usage can be passed out over the internet to the inventor's (or copy right holder's) computer where an automated billing program will present you with a monthly bill. Imagine the crapper's inventor sending his goons to your door to reposes you crapper because you're three months in arrears paying him his royalties on his 'invention'. This notion may seem ludicrous to most but the possibility exists only because it can. . In a more serious vein, some who can afford to pay will have limited access. Market forces will dictate the development, availability, distribution and even quality of information going through cycles of growth and recession. Information will be developed for markets complete with quality grades like so much merchandise marketed to segments of the population always with the maximization of profits (what ever the market will bear) and the bottom line in mind. Gone will be the days where we can merely go to a library or to our computers where we can after a long and arduous process synthesize new ideas. We will have to pay each source the fee they demand. Of course we will want to (have to?) pass the additional expense on to our consumer/users. . Needless to say the argument that we should be paid for our work is an oversimplification and those who proffer it are disingenuous. Payment is really not the major issue here, it's control, absolute control. If payment were really the crucial issue then the matter could be settled quite easily by protecting an author's copyright for a fixed period, with critical points of contact collecting fees or royalties on the basis of a decreasing ratio after which time his ideas would become public domain and available for fair use, research and other uses. Depending upon the ideas three to 21 years would be a reasonable span of time as most ideas are out dated in that period of time. Pressure to produce and innovate would always be present. There will always be a tendency on the part of inventors and copy right holders to position themselves as Microsoft has to impede or control progress to the detriment of its competitors. . No the real issue relative to the copy right debate is absolute complete control over the storage and distribution of information. The stakes loom larger the more powerful the stake holder. Men like Gates and Jobs were initially admired for their pluck and tenacity, seen as innovators and visionaries. Now Gates is just another greedy puke like Metallica. The only innovation Gates and Microsoft have seen these past ten years is what it purchased. Probably the same for Metallica. Phil
Slashdot Mirror
"If the customer does not accept the terms of this agreement, then it THEN IT MUST NOT USE OR PURCHASE RED HAT ENTERPRISE LINUX . "
."
This says it all. I looked for anything that limited, modified or in anyway altered this statement's meaning or intent. I couldn't find anything.
If you don't buy you can't use the "software." Period.
Farther down in the license are the words:
"If customer makes a commercial redistribution of the software and (a) it does not fall within an exception provided in Red Hat's Trademark Guidelines, (b) it has not entered into a redistribution agreement with Red Hat, or (c) it do not have a trademark license agreement with Red Hat, then the customer must modify the files identified as RedHat-Logos and Anaconda-Images so as to remove all use of images containing the 'Red Hat' trademark or Red Hat's Shadow Man logo. Note that the mere deletion of those files may corrupt the software
This is no way reassuring. Does this mean that If you try to remove Red Hat's deal the software won't work properly? This sounds a lot like extortion. Definitely an overt threat.
This pretty much sums up SCO's strategy in their efforts to corral all vulnerable IP under the rubric of a more or less vague notion of "Unix"
Their claims are 'very' broad using words like "know how, concepte, ideas..." It seems as if their theory of the case is that everything even remotely similar to Unix is their IP, a derivitave work so to speak, and that everyone using or developing a Unix-like system should pay royalties to them.
A nice approach if they can pull it off. Given the climate and confusion created by the DMCA, they just might be able to do it.
This is the greatest draw back of efforts to patent and copyright software. Everyone to a greater or lesser degree is vulnerable to extortion from the closed source sector under the guise of "just wanting to get paid for their 'hard work' ." There should be minimum standards before a work can be copyrighted and patented. Otherwise every line of code becomes a bone of contention.
Not having to show your whole hand is particularly helpful especially if you can achieve your goals without having to do so.
to ensure that a vendor can optimize delay, denial, and obfuscation aimed at supporting the maximizing of profits. How stupid does this organization think programmers are? We'd have to be "eat up with the dumb*ss" to buy into this scheme.
"The ENTIRE sourcecode will have to be revealed in court."
Not quite. The code can be shown to the judge "in camra" ie., in his chambers.
Now is the time for all good code contributors to come to the aid of their/our Open Source. Particularly those who contributed to the Bell Labs USL project.
Bring us your modules, patches and snippits. Let us see when was when, what was what, and who borrowed from who.
" b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
This means that even if some sections were in violation of SCO's copyright, then SCO still has to license the entire kernel under the GPL because other valid non-SCO copyrights are in there. They can't just pick and choose pieces, or even files, and claim that they are not covered. If they are part of the kernel, then SCO has to consider them to be covered if they want to redistribute. So, SCO either gave their implicit consent to release those sections under the GPL, or they can claim that they are and never were covered by the GPL, which means that SCO was distributing Linux without a license or any other permission to do so. If they can't or won't abide by the terms of the GPL for any reason, then they cannot distribute any of the code. "
To continue this observation, while UNIX was first being developed first by AT&T then AT&T Bell Labs and then USL, many hackers contributed varying amounts of code to the project possibly some with conditions attached.
Where are these people? Don't they have an interest here in their contributions?
Eric Raymond in his OSI Positon paper observes in his flow chart that prior to 1988, "The red arrow from 4.2BSD to System V represents stolen property. AT&T, SCO/Caldera's predecessor in interest, took code from BSD Unix into System V, removing copyright notices and attributions in violation of the Berkeley license."
Where are the folks who authored this code and shouldn't they be entertaing SCO with law suits or do statutes of limitations come into play here and above?
I discovered Slashdot quite by accident. As I recall, many years ago, I was using my favorite search engine plugging in the words "computer news" and lo and behold there befor me was Slashdot.
At first I was impressed by the variety and newness of topics covered. However, reading all the comments was tedious at best. I didn't ever agree with Slashdot's ranking method as many if not most of the posts ranked with 3's to 5's were clearly
little more that floatsam. So I just stopped reading them.
I did find Slashdot useful in developing a list of computer related news urls which I now review prior to coming to Slashdot. I continue to come here on a daily basis to see if there are new urls to add to my bookmarks and will continue to do so untill the site puts it's hand out at which point I'll cut Slashdot loose as I did Salon.
I've discovered that I can, many times, find and read articles 'before' they're ever posted on Slashdot. Of particular value are CNet, The Register, The Inquirer, Wired News, and, yes, even Geek.com as many of their stroies are posted days before they make it to Slashdot. Most never make it. The only reason I can think of that this might happen is that the staff at Slashdot do not find the items to be sufficienty news worthy. The deal with Intuit's Turbotax and its use of C-Dilla's DRM technology comes to mind. Geek.com carried it two days befor Slashdot. I'll have to credit Slashdot in that it did cover the DRM matter in a cursory fashion sevral months previously.
Now Slashdot is attempting to create value ephemerally using negative reinforcement. More power to them if they succeed. I've never been impressed by Madison Avenue's efforts to tell me what I might find to be of value. I know value when I see it. No one needs to help guide me; that I should value this over that.
As time goes by I find Slashdot less and less relevant. Slashdot used to be on the bleeding edge. Now it seems to be an also ran. This bodes ill for Slashdot. I do, however, wish Slashdot the best in continued success.
We as consumers are being backed into a corner not of our own making. We're faced with what seems to be the distasteful choice of accepting what we're being force fed or to simply not eat. However, we do not have to accept this false dilemma. We have a third choice. That choice is to purchace goods and services "that strictly meet our needs", not theirs. This is a simple but powerful idea. Marketers always try to tell us what we want because they know best. They "create demand" by manipulating our feelings even though there may be no demand at all. But we can destroy this illusion by asserting our own will and by making the third choice.
The ultimate purpose of putting technology out there is for the user to find the limits, if there are any. Putting road blocks up only frustrates this effort.
Personally I don't give a hoot if any web site needs or uses cookies. They can use them all they want, just keep the g*d damn things off my computer.
There is absolutely NO need for a web site to put their deal on my computer. They can keep all info regarding my visit on "their" computer. When I come back for a visit they can do a "look-up" to see if I've ever been there and then continue doing their stick.
Now of course if they want to put some green in my palm for putting their sh*t on my computer...well now that's another story all together. PhilTR
Lets be clear. RIAA's days are numbered as they are rapidly becoming an anachronism. Record publishers and distributors are no longer necessary in the equation for increasingly an artist can develop and distribute his material far more effectively using other means. The proliferation of good and affordable recording equipment, sophisticated and cheap computers, cost effective (can we say free) web sites, and most importantly the vast proliferation internet search engines makes even the most intricate project affordable for all but the most dire of artists. The artist can set up his own payment method using charge cards or other methods. Only greed and lack of talent bars the door to success for lord only know, the market is there. phil
Not quite. You forgot to mention the small but crucial detail of 'profit.' Read the AHRA of '72 again. This time more carefully. Legally hard drives are not recording devices and mp3's are not music recordings for purposes of AHRA enforcement. That may be unfair or even unfortunate, but its the law. Congress will have to either amend the current law or make a new one. phil
jms, thank you, thank you, thank you a thousand times.
Your discussion of the Napster/RIAA issues is remarkably clear and cogent.
Only a hardened kucklehead could continue to argue that downloading mp3's is 'stealing, pirating' or some such other stupid drivel. phil
More Than piracy . I've been thinking about the 'copyright' debate because some aspects of it really bother me. Consequently a few questions come to mind. First of all, have either Metallica or any of the others claiming copyright infringement even acknowledged the past authors whose copyrighted works (at least those not owned by lyric mills) were the source of 'inspiration' (I use the word inspiration loosely here) and from whom bits and pieces were borrowed (or possibly just stolen)? Further, have Metallica or any of the others opened their wallets to offer payment to these authors? Finally, are not new ideas and concepts merely recycled, reworked, and in some cases rejuvenated old ideas and concepts, particularly in the case of music and lyrics? . I pose these questions to highlight the hypocrisy that is plainly evident in the machinations of Metallica and other such greedy pukes who would use the money they received while using the works of others (laughably as a source of 'inspiration') to enrich themselves and who make no mention of these authors and their products nor make any effort to pay them for the time and effort that went into producing their products (which probably were also the results of un-reimbursed borrowings and similar such thievery), so that they could be inspired and later reap huge profits. But there is a larger issue here. . With the advent of digital encoding and highly sophisticated encryption technology the concept of 'copyright protection' is entering a new and troubling era particularly with respect to information development and dispersal. Not only can an author now request and receive payment for his work, he can also conceivably dictate where, when, to whom, to what degree and for how long his work will be accessible. Fair use is now moot. Reverse engineering is moot also. Through the use of licensing and similar such schemes an author can force compliance with his wishes as there are many who are looking for a payday and so long as there are deep pockets there will be a day before the bar for the unfortunate as judges are predisposed to look favorably to the claims (some being specious) of authors and they take pains to ensure that lawyers get paid. . Microsoft has given us a peek at just how perverted our world will soon become with what it did with Kerberos taking the work of others, giving it a superficial treatment, then placing it out on the internet, as its own, hidden behind a fig leaf click through agreement, offensive to all, but perfectly legal. Has anyone heard Microsoft offer to pay the open source community for its work? Would MS object if the shoe were on the other foot? Silly question. . Historically Kings and Clergy controlled the development and distribution of information as they owned (and could afford) the scribes. The printing press changed all that and later recording machines and copiers (as well as other technologies) further propelled the dispersal of information to the masses. The internet vigorously pushes the limits of information distribution yet again. . But now technology seems to promise to closed the door or make it difficult for information pass through. For some like Miscosoft who are positioned with deep pockets the new technology is a boon, but for others it will prove a bane as they will no longer have the free and unfettered access to information they once had. Just imagine if you had to pay each and every reference you used for your last term paper. It gets worse. . Imagine you had to pay each reference every time you presented a paper or gave a presentation. Or each time you made a back-up (a new copy of an original). It's now possible to monitor the copies you save to disk for later reading. How about paying each time you open the file? It can become bizarre. . With the wiring of homes to the internet and the development of smart appliances inventors can now entertain the possibly of requiring a fee/royalty for each usage. For example each time you open a smart refrigerator, use a toaster oven, microwave, even flush your crapper information regarding your usage can be passed out over the internet to the inventor's (or copy right holder's) computer where an automated billing program will present you with a monthly bill. Imagine the crapper's inventor sending his goons to your door to reposes you crapper because you're three months in arrears paying him his royalties on his 'invention'. This notion may seem ludicrous to most but the possibility exists only because it can. . In a more serious vein, some who can afford to pay will have limited access. Market forces will dictate the development, availability, distribution and even quality of information going through cycles of growth and recession. Information will be developed for markets complete with quality grades like so much merchandise marketed to segments of the population always with the maximization of profits (what ever the market will bear) and the bottom line in mind. Gone will be the days where we can merely go to a library or to our computers where we can after a long and arduous process synthesize new ideas. We will have to pay each source the fee they demand. Of course we will want to (have to?) pass the additional expense on to our consumer/users. . Needless to say the argument that we should be paid for our work is an oversimplification and those who proffer it are disingenuous. Payment is really not the major issue here, it's control, absolute control. If payment were really the crucial issue then the matter could be settled quite easily by protecting an author's copyright for a fixed period, with critical points of contact collecting fees or royalties on the basis of a decreasing ratio after which time his ideas would become public domain and available for fair use, research and other uses. Depending upon the ideas three to 21 years would be a reasonable span of time as most ideas are out dated in that period of time. Pressure to produce and innovate would always be present. There will always be a tendency on the part of inventors and copy right holders to position themselves as Microsoft has to impede or control progress to the detriment of its competitors. . No the real issue relative to the copy right debate is absolute complete control over the storage and distribution of information. The stakes loom larger the more powerful the stake holder. Men like Gates and Jobs were initially admired for their pluck and tenacity, seen as innovators and visionaries. Now Gates is just another greedy puke like Metallica. The only innovation Gates and Microsoft have seen these past ten years is what it purchased. Probably the same for Metallica. Phil