It's just funny. Obviously, if you are in the US, you will naturally defend your amazing system of measurement, and not understand why the rest of the world sees this resilience as funny.
but we aren't talking about a license you need to sign in order to do anything, the GPL is not a use license.
Look at it this way: This whole issue starts with copyright, so the FIRSTR question of a "violator" is: This code is protected by copyright, so what gives you the right to use it the way you did?
"nothing, we stole it" - copyright violation. See?
"The GPL does" - Admission they have accepted the terms of the GPL. In this case, you can hold them to it.
I'm not at all saying "if you sign a contract but don't read it, it doens' thold".. but the GPL is not a contract; it's a license. It simply states the terms under which you can do something that copyright law forbids.
is that those UNIX standards are largely useless. Whether i pick a product or not has nothing to do with whether it's called UNIX or not. Whatever the set of criteria the open group came up with doesn't matter to me.
My point is that, other than defining unix as "whatever the Open Group says is unix" and some historical codebase, what's the benefit to me of having them certify it? NOthing, because it doesn't matter to me.
We are discussing whether the trademark has any use anymore, not whether there is a valid case against Apple. If the trademark stands, the case may be valid... obviously.
As a unix professional of 10+ years, my opinion is I don't really care if you call it Unix or not, it in no way affects my purchasing decisions. In fact, I see it in a negative light; the fact that everyone calls linux unix bolsters the unix world, and the Open Group wants to cash in on that popuplarity, even though the products with their own certification didn't earn it.
the point of my post, which did, by the way, start of saying I know what the difference is. My point is:
I KNOW what the OPEN GROUP says is unix, and says is not, and I know that Solaris is UNIX(tm) and that Linux is just "unix-like"... my point is that as a real unix professional, it DOES NOT MATTER TO ME. I don't care at all whether you call it unix or unix like, the definition serves no useful purpose to me. Different Unix(tm) systems are slightly different, as is linux, the BSDs, etc.. it's an irrelevant distinction for all practical purposes.
I'm not arguing that the US should switch. I don't live there, and I couldn't care less if they want to be incompatable with the rest of humanity.. it fits with their mindset anyway.. I'm just using it as an example.
The good reason, by the way, is because it would be nice if the world could speak one language when it came to sizes, and the main holdout is the US. So either a few billion people have to switch to teh US system, or the US has to switch to metric.
Yes, in an ideal world, everyone has choice. We should all realize, though, that often the power to choose is wasteful, and unnecessary. What do I mean?
Do you know how much time, effort, and money gets wasted having some government committee trying to decide what software to use for something? How many factors are involved? And we're talking latin america here, don't forget bribes.
The choice to use free software is not the same as the "choice" to use Windows. Free software encompasses a whole range of things; somteimes, an edict like this is what it TAKES To change things.
Canada switched to the metric system in a very short time. How? It was forced on everyone. Once you accept it, it's EASY. Yet we still have people in the US with silly studies saying how it would take 100 years for the US to switch, the logistics, yadda yadda. Guess what, if it was actually decreed that you HAD to switch, you would find a way, it wouldn't be anywhere near as disruptive as everyone says, and so on. The same happened with the switch to the Euro.. tons of people had studies and reports shownig how switching was going to be a HUGE disaster, how it wouldn't work. Guess what, it went rather well.
Given what government does, I'm sure they can fit whatever applications absolutely cannot be replaced by free alternatives in the 20% non-free they are allowed.
What I'm saying is, in practice, sometimes removing choice is the ONLY way to force a real shift in how things are done. I mean, people have had a choice all along, and the pressures involved caused them to chose proprietary things.
As a long time user of unix and it's lookalikes...
I can tell you the exactl legal meanings of Unix(tm) and whatnot, as best I understand them, and I can tell you the history of Unix, and how the different versions developed, as best I understand them... but really, when I ask if something is Unix or not, or someone says something is Unix, I don't give two shits what the Open Group says about it. For two reasons.
Firstly , because once I had to use Unixware (It was Novell Unixware at the time). If that's real unix, I'll avoid it thanks.
Secondly, it's because unix in normal use just means "something people often call unix, regardless of whether that is correct or not." I realize that definition is cyclic, but you get the idea.
It doesn't serve any practical reason to me; I don't particularly care about the Open Group.
The leading Unix-type systems out there from my perspective are, in no particular order:
Linux FreeBSD Solaris
And the rest, I couldn't care less. I mean, the more the merrier, but these are the only real contenders. I'm not saying the rest are dying or anything, but these are the big players that drive the Unix world.
If the trademark goes away, that doesn't change what Unix means, it just brings the trademark situation in line with reality. The unix world defines itself.
(Please no flames about the other great unix projects.. I know that there are lots who think OpenBSD is the Final Solution for firewalls (it's not, come back when it does policy routing) and lots who woudl rightly say NetBSD is responsible for the rest staying as good as they are (and they are right)
Last I looked, which was for Office 2000, bulk licencing didn't even START to give you a discount over retail until you were talking 200+ copies, and then, it wasn't much. I was shocked at how little a discount they actually offered. We had 50 workstations, and it turned out to be about 1/4 the price if we went to the store with a pickup truck, bought 50 copies of MS Works, then 50 copies of Office 2000 Upgrade.
For the lot of you to get together, and decide to act as a unit, not by walking out, but simply by working the way you think is fair, within reason.
Draft a letter, signed by all of you, about the bad working conditions. Make a few demands, pointing out that they are perfectly reasonable: 40 hour work weeks as a rule, not an exception. No unpaid on-call time. And most importantly, no retaliation towards individuals out of your group for the time being. Point out that if people are fired from the group, the others will not take up the slack for the time being. Slow down your work to a reasonable amount, and do the work you DO choose to do well. Make it clear that you are good resources, but that you will not be pushed around due to managerial incompetence.
It's true that you may be an important group, but so are other groups, if you change your perspective.
You can get a lot more and be more professional than simply all walking out.
This is a common mistake people make when looknig at the situation.
If they distribute code derived form a GPL work, they aer not BOUND by the gpl; they are BOUND by copyright law, and the copyright holders who's rights are being violated can sue. The GPL is simply something they could cite to demonstrate they had permission to do what they do.
IT's not a GPL violation, it's code theft. There is a difference.
Yes, there is a clause in the GPL that says "By distributing siad work, you accept this license"... but that can only apply if you have READ the license in the first place. So it's dodgy.
not that it really bears on the case, but as for public image, and those saying "SCO is mad because of the downfall of their unix business"... remmeber.
THe SCO that you see now is Caldera... not the old SCO.
The OLD company that was SCO got OUT of the unix business, and went on to do other application level things, and are doing quite well. So it's not SCO with some grudge about it's unix business... it's some new people trying to leverage some IP they thought they hade.
I guarantee if someone that good acts very professionaly, doens't brag about what they do, and keeps a low profile with regard to their skills, they won't have problems. If you present yourself as a rogue living on the edge, people will not trust you.
An employer will not fire you JUST because you know how to pick a lock, but the fact that you constantly talk about what locks you picked might scare him a little.
80 lines of code isn't much; and it could be// Comment here// Comment here// Joe sux dik main ( int argc, char **argv) { for (x=1; xy; x++; _
etc... with VERY little original work in it.
I'm not speculating on what this code does or does not have, but to be a serious copyright violation, it would have to have some significance, and not just be a few lines of header, or something.
But that doesn't change the fact that, in a case involving trade secret, you don't make your secrets public. What if it turns out the secrets ARENT in linux? That's for the court to decide, not you.. and if they release their secrets, and it turns out there is no violation, they have now LOST the secret protection they want.
SO yeah, sco has no case, blah blah blah.. but they ARE proceeding apropriately as far as trade secret cases go.
Yes, with the Linux kernel that is so very popular and widespread, there seems to be no benefit to linksys offering it as well.. but what if it's some more obscure stuff?
This clause ensures that the source WILL be available.. it's not kernel.org's responsibility to satisfy linksys's GPL obilgations.
So yeah, we shouldn't freak out at them for it, but they have a duty to distribute that source.]
you missed the point... their changes are not necessarily covered by the GPL.
The GPL says if you distribute at all, even teh stock kernel, you have to provide source (unless it's non commercial, and you received it with a written offer, you can pass that offer on, ie: I can give my friend a copy of debian, and not have any further obligation. A commercial distribution cannot.
Signatures can be any mark you like.. there is no requirement that it be your full name in cursive. It could be a pretty little picture of a flower... or an X. Doesn't matter, as long as it is verifiable. Look at all signatures by the same person, and they match.
As for ink well & nib.. not lifting the pen does help, but more importantly, it's less tiring on the hand. Lifting the pen all the time gets tiring... smooth writing only lifting the pen at the end of a word takes less effort, and you can write faster and longer. Now, there are naysayers who say this isn't so.. but those naysayers don't write with the proper attention to detail. If you follow the correct methods of writing, you can write fast and long, comfortably for hours.
Well... I think, for one, we should bring back fountain pens. I don't mean inkwells, necessarily.. but cartridge based fountain pens.. and give kids a CHOICE as to which one they want to write with.
I don't mean necessairly a calligraphy pen, either the wide nibbed variety, or the springy kind that vary the line width by pressure (more authentic, I believe). Just a normal stiff nibbed fountain pen... like a Parker 45, or something.
I write often with a Parker 45, I find it easier to write with than ballpoint.. I can feel the texture of the paper, and I don't press as hard. For some reason my writing is better this way. Of course, you do have to stay away from shitty paper, as the ink bleeds easier... ballpoint gives a more controlled inkflow... but still. Give kids a choice, make writing interesting.
There are 2 or 3 nice styles, and several types of pens.
I'm the same age, and my handwriting sucked as well. Why?
a) I'm lazy, and didn't care b) I don't have a natural aptitude for it c) They didn't teach it in a way that interested me.
Now, they can just blame it on computers.
A year ago I started studying penmanship. I can sit down and slowly write some half decent spencerian. It takes effort and concentration, and some hand muscles and movements I'm not used to.. but it looks great. And it shows up in my normal writing now, too.
So really, if you want kids to write well, teach them to write well. Pretty simple.
School needs to be more integrated. We had classes where the teachers demanded handwritten assignments, not typewritten. THe idea is that in one class, you practice skills from another.
It's dumb for, say, math class to give you problems to solve that relate to nonsensical things like "If a blue star is 5000 degrees C, and a red star is 3000 degrees C, how many degree is 3 blue stars and 4 red stars?". Sure, anyone can derive a forumla out of it.. bu tother than the pure math, the question is nonsense.. you don't add up temperatrues like that, it has no meaning in the real world. Why not ask a question about somethign MEANINGFUL, related to chemistry, or physics.. even if you haven't taught the concepts yet. School needs to tie together more closely, handwriting included.
Seriously though, as a long time sysadmin with linux experience, your own opinion is what counts. It IS a sales tactic, nothing more. It's an attempt to force you to think about issues that you never cared about before because they don't matter to you. It's a way of steering you into a certain way of thinking, so you will spend more money.
Slashdot Mirror
As I said, I really don't care.
It's just funny. Obviously, if you are in the US, you will naturally defend your amazing system of measurement, and not understand why the rest of the world sees this resilience as funny.
Neverthless, it's funny.
As the world is largely using separate systems on all of those.. except metric, where the US is one of the only places left who does not.
You pick and choose where it makes sense. Sure, fair enough. I guess the rest of the world is just incompetent, and switched all at once, eh?
It's not a big deal because you are the only one left, and you only have to worry about converting to one other system.
but we aren't talking about a license you need to sign in order to do anything, the GPL is not a use license.
.. but the GPL is not a contract; it's a license. It simply states the terms under which you can do something that copyright law forbids.
Look at it this way: This whole issue starts with copyright, so the FIRSTR question of a "violator" is: This code is protected by copyright, so what gives you the right to use it the way you did?
"nothing, we stole it" - copyright violation. See?
"The GPL does" - Admission they have accepted the terms of the GPL. In this case, you can hold them to it.
I'm not at all saying "if you sign a contract but don't read it, it doens' thold"
is that those UNIX standards are largely useless. Whether i pick a product or not has nothing to do with whether it's called UNIX or not. Whatever the set of criteria the open group came up with doesn't matter to me.
My point is that, other than defining unix as "whatever the Open Group says is unix" and some historical codebase, what's the benefit to me of having them certify it? NOthing, because it doesn't matter to me.
We are discussing whether the trademark has any use anymore, not whether there is a valid case against Apple. If the trademark stands, the case may be valid... obviously.
As a unix professional of 10+ years, my opinion is I don't really care if you call it Unix or not, it in no way affects my purchasing decisions. In fact, I see it in a negative light; the fact that everyone calls linux unix bolsters the unix world, and the Open Group wants to cash in on that popuplarity, even though the products with their own certification didn't earn it.
the point of my post, which did, by the way, start of saying I know what the difference is. My point is:
... my point is that as a real unix professional, it DOES NOT MATTER TO ME. I don't care at all whether you call it unix or unix like, the definition serves no useful purpose to me. Different Unix(tm) systems are slightly different, as is linux, the BSDs, etc.. it's an irrelevant distinction for all practical purposes.
I KNOW what the OPEN GROUP says is unix, and says is not, and I know that Solaris is UNIX(tm) and that Linux is just "unix-like"
I knew that question was coming.
I'm not arguing that the US should switch. I don't live there, and I couldn't care less if they want to be incompatable with the rest of humanity.. it fits with their mindset anyway.. I'm just using it as an example.
The good reason, by the way, is because it would be nice if the world could speak one language when it came to sizes, and the main holdout is the US. So either a few billion people have to switch to teh US system, or the US has to switch to metric.
That money may very well stay local... building a local technology industry instead of outsourcing.
Yes, in an ideal world, everyone has choice.
We should all realize, though, that often the power to choose is wasteful, and unnecessary. What do I mean?
Do you know how much time, effort, and money gets wasted having some government committee trying to decide what software to use for something? How many factors are involved? And we're talking latin america here, don't forget bribes.
The choice to use free software is not the same as the "choice" to use Windows. Free software encompasses a whole range of things; somteimes, an edict like this is what it TAKES To change things.
Canada switched to the metric system in a very short time. How? It was forced on everyone. Once you accept it, it's EASY. Yet we still have people in the US with silly studies saying how it would take 100 years for the US to switch, the logistics, yadda yadda. Guess what, if it was actually decreed that you HAD to switch, you would find a way, it wouldn't be anywhere near as disruptive as everyone says, and so on.
The same happened with the switch to the Euro.. tons of people had studies and reports shownig how switching was going to be a HUGE disaster, how it wouldn't work. Guess what, it went rather well.
Given what government does, I'm sure they can fit whatever applications absolutely cannot be replaced by free alternatives in the 20% non-free they are allowed.
What I'm saying is, in practice, sometimes removing choice is the ONLY way to force a real shift in how things are done. I mean, people have had a choice all along, and the pressures involved caused them to chose proprietary things.
As a long time user of unix and it's lookalikes...
I can tell you the exactl legal meanings of Unix(tm) and whatnot, as best I understand them, and I can tell you the history of Unix, and how the different versions developed, as best I understand them... but really, when I ask if something is Unix or not, or someone says something is Unix, I don't give two shits what the Open Group says about it. For two reasons.
Firstly , because once I had to use Unixware (It was Novell Unixware at the time). If that's real unix, I'll avoid it thanks.
Secondly, it's because unix in normal use just means "something people often call unix, regardless of whether that is correct or not." I realize that definition is cyclic, but you get the idea.
It doesn't serve any practical reason to me; I don't particularly care about the Open Group.
The leading Unix-type systems out there from my perspective are, in no particular order:
Linux
FreeBSD
Solaris
And the rest, I couldn't care less. I mean, the more the merrier, but these are the only real contenders. I'm not saying the rest are dying or anything, but these are the big players that drive the Unix world.
If the trademark goes away, that doesn't change what Unix means, it just brings the trademark situation in line with reality. The unix world defines itself.
(Please no flames about the other great unix projects.. I know that there are lots who think OpenBSD is the Final Solution for firewalls (it's not, come back when it does policy routing) and lots who woudl rightly say NetBSD is responsible for the rest staying as good as they are (and they are right)
But anyone with half a brain knows that most unix-LIKE systems actually have MORE powers than standard UNIX does.
that unix has become a generic term...
If the unix trademark is invalidated, who will stop Microsoft from calling their next thing "Microsoft Unix" ?
Last I looked, which was for Office 2000, bulk licencing didn't even START to give you a discount over retail until you were talking 200+ copies, and then, it wasn't much. I was shocked at how little a discount they actually offered. We had 50 workstations, and it turned out to be about 1/4 the price if we went to the store with a pickup truck, bought 50 copies of MS Works, then 50 copies of Office 2000 Upgrade.
For the lot of you to get together, and decide to act as a unit, not by walking out, but simply by working the way you think is fair, within reason.
Draft a letter, signed by all of you, about the bad working conditions. Make a few demands, pointing out that they are perfectly reasonable: 40 hour work weeks as a rule, not an exception. No unpaid on-call time. And most importantly, no retaliation towards individuals out of your group for the time being. Point out that if people are fired from the group, the others will not take up the slack for the time being. Slow down your work to a reasonable amount, and do the work you DO choose to do well. Make it clear that you are good resources, but that you will not be pushed around due to managerial incompetence.
It's true that you may be an important group, but so are other groups, if you change your perspective.
You can get a lot more and be more professional than simply all walking out.
This is a common mistake people make when looknig at the situation.
If they distribute code derived form a GPL work, they aer not BOUND by the gpl; they are BOUND by copyright law, and the copyright holders who's rights are being violated can sue. The GPL is simply something they could cite to demonstrate they had permission to do what they do.
IT's not a GPL violation, it's code theft. There is a difference.
Yes, there is a clause in the GPL that says "By distributing siad work, you accept this license"... but that can only apply if you have READ the license in the first place. So it's dodgy.
not that it really bears on the case, but as for public image, and those saying "SCO is mad because of the downfall of their unix business"... remmeber.
THe SCO that you see now is Caldera... not the old SCO.
The OLD company that was SCO got OUT of the unix business, and went on to do other application level things, and are doing quite well. So it's not SCO with some grudge about it's unix business... it's some new people trying to leverage some IP they thought they hade.
Partly, it's the way people act that causes fear.
I guarantee if someone that good acts very professionaly, doens't brag about what they do, and keeps a low profile with regard to their skills, they won't have problems. If you present yourself as a rogue living on the edge, people will not trust you.
An employer will not fire you JUST because you know how to pick a lock, but the fact that you constantly talk about what locks you picked might scare him a little.
entirely on what those 80 lines contain.
// Comment here // Comment here // Joe sux dik
80 lines of code isn't much; and it could be
main (
int argc,
char **argv) {
for (x=1;
xy;
x++;
_
etc... with VERY little original work in it.
I'm not speculating on what this code does or does not have, but to be a serious copyright violation, it would have to have some significance, and not just be a few lines of header, or something.
But that doesn't change the fact that, in a case involving trade secret, you don't make your secrets public. What if it turns out the secrets ARENT in linux? That's for the court to decide, not you.. and if they release their secrets, and it turns out there is no violation, they have now LOST the secret protection they want.
SO yeah, sco has no case, blah blah blah.. but they ARE proceeding apropriately as far as trade secret cases go.
It ensures the code is available.
Yes, with the Linux kernel that is so very popular and widespread, there seems to be no benefit to linksys offering it as well.. but what if it's some more obscure stuff?
This clause ensures that the source WILL be available.. it's not kernel.org's responsibility to satisfy linksys's GPL obilgations.
So yeah, we shouldn't freak out at them for it, but they have a duty to distribute that source.]
you missed the point... their changes are not necessarily covered by the GPL.
The GPL says if you distribute at all, even teh stock kernel, you have to provide source (unless it's non commercial, and you received it with a written offer, you can pass that offer on, ie: I can give my friend a copy of debian, and not have any further obligation. A commercial distribution cannot.
Signatures can be any mark you like.. there is no requirement that it be your full name in cursive. It could be a pretty little picture of a flower... or an X. Doesn't matter, as long as it is verifiable. Look at all signatures by the same person, and they match.
As for ink well & nib.. not lifting the pen does help, but more importantly, it's less tiring on the hand. Lifting the pen all the time gets tiring... smooth writing only lifting the pen at the end of a word takes less effort, and you can write faster and longer. Now, there are naysayers who say this isn't so.. but those naysayers don't write with the proper attention to detail. If you follow the correct methods of writing, you can write fast and long, comfortably for hours.
And that will be investigated, found to be fraudulent, and the stuff will be confiscated. You would be defrauding your creditors.
Well... I think, for one, we should bring back fountain pens. I don't mean inkwells, necessarily.. but cartridge based fountain pens.. and give kids a CHOICE as to which one they want to write with.
I don't mean necessairly a calligraphy pen, either the wide nibbed variety, or the springy kind that vary the line width by pressure (more authentic, I believe). Just a normal stiff nibbed fountain pen... like a Parker 45, or something.
I write often with a Parker 45, I find it easier to write with than ballpoint.. I can feel the texture of the paper, and I don't press as hard. For some reason my writing is better this way. Of course, you do have to stay away from shitty paper, as the ink bleeds easier... ballpoint gives a more controlled inkflow... but still.
Give kids a choice, make writing interesting.
There are 2 or 3 nice styles, and several types of pens.
I myself use either pencils, or fountain pens.
I'm the same age, and my handwriting sucked as well. Why?
a) I'm lazy, and didn't care
b) I don't have a natural aptitude for it
c) They didn't teach it in a way that interested me.
Now, they can just blame it on computers.
A year ago I started studying penmanship. I can sit down and slowly write some half decent spencerian. It takes effort and concentration, and some hand muscles and movements I'm not used to.. but it looks great. And it shows up in my normal writing now, too.
So really, if you want kids to write well, teach them to write well. Pretty simple.
School needs to be more integrated. We had classes where the teachers demanded handwritten assignments, not typewritten. THe idea is that in one class, you practice skills from another.
It's dumb for, say, math class to give you problems to solve that relate to nonsensical things like "If a blue star is 5000 degrees C, and a red star is 3000 degrees C, how many degree is 3 blue stars and 4 red stars?". Sure, anyone can derive a forumla out of it.. bu tother than the pure math, the question is nonsense.. you don't add up temperatrues like that, it has no meaning in the real world. Why not ask a question about somethign MEANINGFUL, related to chemistry, or physics.. even if you haven't taught the concepts yet. School needs to tie together more closely, handwriting included.
was use Debian.
Seriously though, as a long time sysadmin with linux experience, your own opinion is what counts. It IS a sales tactic, nothing more. It's an attempt to force you to think about issues that you never cared about before because they don't matter to you. It's a way of steering you into a certain way of thinking, so you will spend more money.