Anyone who says 'Loser Pays' instantly loses 95% of readers.
Situation: I own a patent. SomeCorp is suspected of violating my patent. I sue. Thanks to their VASTLY SUPERIOR legal resources, I lose. Suddenly, I'm not only screwed out of patent protection, I'm bankrupt to boot.
I am a Linux user and SCO sue me. I have the 'choice' of paying $699 or funding a lawsuit, that will cost > $699, but I feel I should win.
In the US I pay the $699 as it's cheaper. In the UK I fight as I get my legal costs back when I win.
Maybe IBM's JFS is free & clear, but what about [originally Sequent] authored NUMA?
I believe that NUMA was developed independent of OS, and implementations were done for both the Unix derived Dynix and Linux. NUMA is not directly derived from Unix anyway.
IBM retains the copyright, true. The contract, as interpreted by SCO, allows SCO to control what is done with IBM's code. Specifically, if the SCO interpretation stands, IBM are contractually obliged to treat their code in the same way as the original code they licensed from AT&T. This means they couldn't disclose it to others except under the contracted terms and putting it into linux would undoubtedly breach the terms of the contract.
I used xenix, running on a 286 in the mid/late 1980s.Windows 3 might have been available but I don't think so. In any event xenix was far more capable for the task. (Overnight dialup of ~400 shops, collection and consolidation of takings and then upload to mainframe).
My first experience of a *nix system that didn't belong to someone else...
the code easy to read. This is far more important than comments
Quite agree. The problem with comments is keeping them up-to-date. The amount of time I've wasted believing comments that say a function does one thing, when in fact it might have once, but doesn't any more....
It says open code, but does that mean the results must be open or simply the basis must be open and the end results can only link to open libraries if they are closed?
Maybe it's just me, but I find this sentence extremely difficult to parse. I think it's a special case for off-duty bookeepers....
Isn't it the prerogative of the private sector to publish at will? This is done all the time in print and television media. Should be no surprise that certain things get "omitted" on an Internet site.
No. The point is not that it has been omitted, but that at one time it was included and now it isn't. Print media and TV do not retrospectively re-edit their publications/programming, removing material.
But personally I wonder if Borland is having some kind of identity crisis. They have just about dropped all future Win32 support
There is C# builder for win32. Haven't got round to installing it yet, however reviews comparing it to Visual Studio are not favourable. Shame as I used to like Borland products more than MS.
This is all about the money, both from stock and from any Linux user stupid enough to pay the shakedown. SCO has no established legal right to demand money; they won't until after it has been judged in a court of law that their IP was misappropriated.
Actually whatever a court says they will never have any legal right to demand money from users. If a wrong has been committed they can demand damages from the guilt party but end-users, no. The end-user is harmless and anyway this would imply that reparation be made twice, once by the guilty party and again by users.
I was thinking that SCO is trying to clam that the GPL is invalid because the have already violated the GPL by incorporating GPL code in to there proprietary products
This has been strongly hinted at by Christoph Hedwig (sp?). I think he was a Caldera developer in Germany, and he suggested that support for a certain filesystem in SCO products would be a productive area to look at.
Luckly i am not in the position to be targetted by SCO. First off because i live an ocean away. If i were targetted by them however, thinking im a smaller than fortune500 company, i would probably be very tempted to pay up.
Maybe it's a different ocean. I'm in the UK and I don't believe SCO are in a position to sue me for anything. I have no relationship with them. They certainly won't get away with alleging infringing code and refusing to specify same.
Users who purchased stolen versions have the right to sue the distributor for damages
All copies of Linux in use that include the stolen code must either be licensed or destroyed including those in use
Anyone continuing to use a more recent Linux release that contains the stolen code is now subject to separate charges and penalties
The Linux dev tree is reset under court order to the point prior to violation
The court will impose a code review and check-in process that makes violations of this kind less likely
I doubt all this is true in the US, it most certainly isn't in other parts of the world. Consider Germany where SCO dropped their claim immediately on challenge. They may have some claim against IBM, however this seems unlikely, as it would be one horrendous howler on IBM's part.
As far as I understand the stories, IBM has written NUMA and RCU code for their System V based Unix (AIX)
IBM's System V license seems to state that when they add code to their SysV (==AIX) that code has to be treated as the rest of the SCO owned SysV code.
That was a few days ago. Today SCO are claiming the same thing but in relation to Sequent (now owned by IBM). Basically claiming that any code Sequent added to their Unix has to be treated as if it is part of the original Sys V code base.
The story is confusing in mentioning Novell. It seems Novell are a party to the original IBM deal, and can prevent termination of IBM's AIX license. I'm not sure it follows that Novell have the same position in relation to the Sequent / SCO deal. I guess we'll have to wait for IBM to respond.
Since IBM has the copyrights to the code in question, what recourse can SCO possibly have against end-users?
caldera linux faq doesn't seem an unreasonable claim. I've no idea if these libraries are in any distro that I've ever used (I don't think so, if so I didn't realise) but perhaps if they are then SCO have some argument, especially if there are people who actually need these to run some app or other. And yes, I know, this doesn't relate to IBM code but it might be a claim against end-users.
Why the Sequent code? I'm guessing that Boies finally realized that the IBM sideletter gave IBM all rights to its own derivative work, which would burst most of SCO's claims. But the Sequent code would not have been protected from ATT's derivative works clause since Sequent didn't appear to have a side agreement like IBM's.
I thought that Sequent had published their work prior to adding it to their Unix code, thereby this work could not be considered derivitive? I'm sure somone published a link on this in the past few weeks.
What if my music computer's not on the net? The four tracks that aren't drm'd play quite happily in old versions of media player with no live net connection. Haven't bothered to investigate the other ones yet.
The only tricky part I can see of installing linux apps is the need to be root.
Also can be true of win2k. I don't see how you can really get away from this on a multi-user OS. If the app is for all users to use then you pretty much have to install it as root/Administrator.
Sounds a lot like the MS 'certified to run with windows logo' (whatever it was called). Whatever you think of windows I don't think many would dispute that this is a 'good thing', particularly those who remember DOS programs where every program has a different set of key strokes for the same function.
The ideal might be that by default an app uses CTRL+S to save or F2 or whatever, but these keys can all be re-bound to suit individual preferences.
Whatever, best of luck, I think this sounds worthwhile.
Last time I looked, Blueyonder were offering the 1Mbps service at twice the price of the standard 512Kbps service. Which means that they're charging £50 per month for a 1Mbps downstream connection.
That is certainly not true if you upgrade from the existing 512 service. I've done this and it costs 39.99 per month. If you also take telephone or TV it's less.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone who says 'Loser Pays' instantly loses 95% of readers.
Situation: I own a patent. SomeCorp is suspected of violating my patent. I sue. Thanks to their VASTLY SUPERIOR legal resources, I lose. Suddenly, I'm not only screwed out of patent protection, I'm bankrupt to boot.
I am a Linux user and SCO sue me. I have the 'choice' of paying $699 or funding a lawsuit, that will cost > $699, but I feel I should win.
In the US I pay the $699 as it's cheaper. In the UK I fight as I get my legal costs back when I win.
Works both ways I guess....
Maybe IBM's JFS is free & clear, but what about [originally Sequent] authored NUMA?
I believe that NUMA was developed independent of OS, and implementations were done for both the Unix derived Dynix and Linux. NUMA is not directly derived from Unix anyway.IBM retains the copyright, true. The contract, as interpreted by SCO, allows SCO to control what is done with IBM's code. Specifically, if the SCO interpretation stands, IBM are contractually obliged to treat their code in the same way as the original code they licensed from AT&T. This means they couldn't disclose it to others except under the contracted terms and putting it into linux would undoubtedly breach the terms of the contract.
My first experience of a *nix system that didn't belong to someone else...
the code easy to read. This is far more important than comments Quite agree. The problem with comments is keeping them up-to-date. The amount of time I've wasted believing comments that say a function does one thing, when in fact it might have once, but doesn't any more....
Maybe it's just me, but I find this sentence extremely difficult to parse. I think it's a special case for off-duty bookeepers....
No. The point is not that it has been omitted, but that at one time it was included and now it isn't. Print media and TV do not retrospectively re-edit their publications/programming, removing material.
There is C# builder for win32. Haven't got round to installing it yet, however reviews comparing it to Visual Studio are not favourable. Shame as I used to like Borland products more than MS.
This isn't really the same thing. SCO hasn't sued IBM for copyright violation. They've sued for breech of contract.
Actually whatever a court says they will never have any legal right to demand money from users. If a wrong has been committed they can demand damages from the guilt party but end-users, no. The end-user is harmless and anyway this would imply that reparation be made twice, once by the guilty party and again by users.
This has been strongly hinted at by Christoph Hedwig (sp?). I think he was a Caldera developer in Germany, and he suggested that support for a certain filesystem in SCO products would be a productive area to look at.
Absolute rubbish
Microsoft, Oracle, Borland, IBM, Sun, CA all sping to mind immediately.
Maybe it's a different ocean. I'm in the UK and I don't believe SCO are in a position to sue me for anything. I have no relationship with them. They certainly won't get away with alleging infringing code and refusing to specify same.
For those that missed it The Onion's focus report is here
All copies of Linux in use that include the stolen code must either be licensed or destroyed including those in use
Anyone continuing to use a more recent Linux release that contains the stolen code is now subject to separate charges and penalties
The Linux dev tree is reset under court order to the point prior to violation
The court will impose a code review and check-in process that makes violations of this kind less likely
I doubt all this is true in the US, it most certainly isn't in other parts of the world.
Consider Germany where SCO dropped their claim immediately on challenge. They may have some claim against IBM, however this seems unlikely, as it would be one horrendous howler on IBM's part.
Can you imagine the consequences?
1.Get auto patched.
2.No TCP/IP so get disconnected from net.
3.Reinstall OS
4.GoTo 1.
Familiar statistic restated - 90% of the worlds useful computers don't run windows!
That was a few days ago. Today SCO are claiming the same thing but in relation to Sequent (now owned by IBM). Basically claiming that any code Sequent added to their Unix has to be treated as if it is part of the original Sys V code base.
The story is confusing in mentioning Novell. It seems Novell are a party to the original IBM deal, and can prevent termination of IBM's AIX license. I'm not sure it follows that Novell have the same position in relation to the Sequent / SCO deal. I guess we'll have to wait for IBM to respond.
caldera linux faq doesn't seem an unreasonable claim. I've no idea if these libraries are in any distro that I've ever used (I don't think so, if so I didn't realise) but perhaps if they are then SCO have some argument, especially if there are people who actually need these to run some app or other. And yes, I know, this doesn't relate to IBM code but it might be a claim against end-users.
I thought that Sequent had published their work prior to adding it to their Unix code, thereby this work could not be considered derivitive? I'm sure somone published a link on this in the past few weeks.
From the story For large enterprises, replicating the performance, reliability, and scalability of the Microsoft OSes would be key
I'm sure this would be nigh on impossible using linux.
What if my music computer's not on the net?
The four tracks that aren't drm'd play quite happily in old versions of media player with no live net connection. Haven't bothered to investigate the other ones yet.
The only tricky part I can see of installing linux apps is the need to be root.
Also can be true of win2k. I don't see how you can really get away from this on a multi-user OS. If the app is for all users to use then you pretty much have to install it as root/Administrator.
Sounds a lot like the MS 'certified to run with windows logo' (whatever it was called). Whatever you think of windows I don't think many would dispute that this is a 'good thing', particularly those who remember DOS programs where every program has a different set of key strokes for the same function.
The ideal might be that by default an app uses CTRL+S to save or F2 or whatever, but these keys can all be re-bound to suit individual preferences.
Whatever, best of luck, I think this sounds worthwhile.
Last time I looked, Blueyonder were offering the 1Mbps service at twice the price of the standard 512Kbps service. Which means that they're charging £50 per month for a 1Mbps downstream connection.
That is certainly not true if you upgrade from the existing 512 service. I've done this and it costs 39.99 per month. If you also take telephone or TV it's less.
I prefer to roll em up and smoke em myself...