Definately a sales tactic. It won't be "more stable". RH isn't just "for hackers". Heck, real hackers don't use redhat anyway...
When end of life is reached, redhat will no longer provide updates, security or otherwise, most likely. So then, it's up to you what to do. Realistically, it should not be a problem for you to upgrade to a newer system by that time. Either that, or you'll have to keep track of security stuff by yourself (which you do anyway, right?)
I'm 29 years old.. and my handwriting has always been of the messy type. All through school, I was the messy handwriter. Now, it wasn't that I had some dysfunction.. I mean I could write, I have superb hand eye coordination.. but anything involving drawing, I have trouble doing neatly.
My current "handwriting" If you want to call it that, like most people, is an individual style, developed as a mix between what I can read again later, and what's most comfortable to write. It would certainly flunk me out of any penmanship class.. but most people could read it without too much difficulty, especially if I intend it to be for them.
I never write a capital E properly.. it looks more like a backwards 3 with a little leading curl on top... my capital D has no proper slanted lines.. just curves. And so on... Many of the letters don't fall into any known official writing system, but I guarantee you would recognize them anyway.
I guess what I'm saying is, in the end, there are two types of handwriters in our society: those who write for the sake of reading it back later, who invariably develop their own style, and those who adhere to an official writing standard.
For instance, a while back I took it upon myself to improve my handwriting. It's going okay, it just takes lots of practice. I picked up a Spencerian Handwriting tutorial.. now Spencerian is not the Italic or Cursive or whatever we were taught in school. it's what our grandfathers and great grandfathers were taught in school. And you know what? It's NOT hard! Yes, I struggle with it, but that's due to my aforementioned difficulties with pen and paper... It's extremely logical, and it's a system.. where every letter is composed of more or less seven basic skills (curves, lines, etc). It becomes easy to remember the logical way to make any letter, and the eye can tell if it actually looks right when written. If you havent' seen it, properly written spencerian is both easy to read and very pleasing to the eye. It's also designed for a fountain pen with a spencerian nib.. but I actaully find it easier to write with a fountain pen than a ballpoint, I just like the way it actually lets me feel the texture of the paper, I think.
So it got me thinking: From what I recall of learning to handwrite at an early age, it was boring. They didn't tell us anything about different styles, or that there was more than one way to write, or that in the future it woudln't even matter.. they just went ahead and showed us one thing. Now.. why don't we get back and take penmahship seriously? When you start teaching handwriting, pick something like spencerian. Teach them to write beautifully, not just to write. Or at least put people through a mandatory course in highschool, even just a couple days a week, on penmanship. Let them pick what style they want, but make them study it.
And then I think, does it matter? I do 90% of my work on computers, the only writing I do is a note to myself throughout the day on a notepad, or a quick post-it to someone else. And I type around 100wpm.... so writing serves no real practical purpose, other than as a hobby, I guess.
Now, my writing still sucks, but it's getting there.
What I mean is they are not obligated to release source THEY have written.. because you know everyoen is going to scream about how now they are "owed" wireless drivers.
Yeah, linksys has to follow either section 3(a) or 3(b). 3(c) is not available to them.
But his assumption about how kernel modules work is completely wrong.. though the INTENT might be something like he describes, it's not what Linus said.
The Linux kernel license says you can code proprietary modules, as long as the interface is part of the stock kernel (in other words, GPL)
So you can make a proprietary network driver, as long you don't haev to modify the main kernel to get it to work; you are under no obligation to release that source at all. If you have some way of hacking an entire realtime OS to look like a network drive to the kernel, that would comply.
So, linksys should be redistributing the linux sources, however, if their custom work is confined to modules & userland code, they are under no obligation to release the source to those drives. And as linux already has a kernel interface for network & wireless network, there is no reason to expect them to release that code.
However, the GPL still requires that they provide source, even if they have not modified it. If you redistribute, you must provide source, or at least a written offer for the source.
You can (section c) simply pass along the written offer YOU received, if you are simply redistributing, and not modifying, but only if it's NON-COMMERCIAL, and only if you yourself received the written offer. IF they are using stock linux kernels, there is no written offer, so.. they are obligated to provide a copy of the source (sans their changes, if they are not within the scope of the gpl)
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
* a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
* b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
* c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
First, as someone else already said, just becuase it uses a linux kernel doesn't mean they modified anything, it could be a stock kernel. If they wrote userspace drivers and/or kernel modules using existing interfaces for their custom hardware, they are not obligated to release anything.
Secondly, if they weren't abiding by terms they had to according to the GPL, it would be COPYRIGHT violation, not license violation, as if you don't comply with the license, copyright law says they can't redistribute it. I know it seems like a silly point, but it's not.
People talk about the GPL being "tested in court" and whatnot.. but the fact is: If you don't accept the GPL as valid, then copyright law still stands, and says you can't redistribute, or make derivitive works. A judge can rule the GPL as invalid, but that would mean that nobody had any rights to redistribute anything.
It's not a license you had to accept and agree to in order to use the product.. so you can't "violate" it.
Linus, or any other kernel developer could go to linksys, and say "I have not granted you permission to use my copyrighted work, please demonstrate why you think you are allowed to do this". They can then either cite how the GPL allows them to do what they do, or concede that they have no right to distribute.
So as unclear as I can be.. it's not a GPL violation... and people are not forced to release code because of a nonexistant GPL violation... although that might be an acceptable remedy to all parties in most cases. They could also be forced to simply stop doing it.
Yup. And those flamers were free to get together and do their own version, and publicize it all they wanted. As it stands, they didn't, and people used and liked ESRs version. So if he wants to overhaul it again, power to him....
If ya don't like it, please, start an open source jargon file.
When you are charging someone with breach of contract and possibly leaking trade secrets, you don't publish the information widely, you have it in sealed court documents.
Forget that it's SCO for a minute, and pretend it's someone with an honest theft of trade secret case...
Let's say someone stole the forumla to Coca Cola.. it was available to them under some NDA, but they breached their contract. In this case, you don't ask Coke to make it public so the world can decide if it's the same formula or not.. you seal the documents, have experts look at it, experts BOTH the prosecution and defendant accept as experts, and the case continues.
What SCO is claiming is not unlike this. Although SCO has threatened the linux world, currently it is IBM who sco has in court, and it's between IBM and SCO to decide what's fair.
What LinuxTAG did in Germany is a more appropriate response: Have sco stop sending out threatening letters and harming business unless they are going to show us some evidence.
It would have to be enough code of significant enough function to constitute copyright violation.
Although any transfer of code might be a breach of their contract with IBM, to claim copyright violation because of one line of code, for instance, is generally not going to work.
80 lines of code... again, it would depend what the code does, what it was originally based on, etc. Regarding the GPL.. your point is valid, but let's reword your last statement. The GPL does not require you to transfer full license to patents, trade secrets, and copyrights. Patents: Yes, it's implicit that if you have patents, you are granting royaltee free access to your patents under the GPL work. Copyright: No, you are not assigning full license under copyright, only under the terms of the GPL. If you had full license, you could redidstribute under any license you want. Trade Secret: These aern't like the others, and they aren't soemthign you register. You keep them secret. The act of publishing your own trade secret makes it not a secret anymore. The only way to protect trade secrets is by strict NDAs and strict control over who gets to learn them. So saying GPL requires assignment if trade secret is moot.
Yeah, most people who think rationally have considred that, in the particulars of the IBM case, SCO might actually have some case.
The thing is, even if IBM directly stole copyrighted code and used it, that does NOT make SCO the overlord of all things linux, it just means IBM fucked up.
The linux world ISN'T about stealing, and if SCO were to tell the world what code was stolen, and if we believed them (like, if it could be shown that the code came from IBM, etc) then the kernel developers at least woudl most likely remove the code immediately, and get to work on something else.
SCO still hasn't indicated if they are talking about copyright violation, or a trade secret. In other words, are they mad about this exact code, or are they mad about what the code actually does.
You might not care if they see you are listening in. but what if they are exchanging secret keys for normal encryption over the quantum channel? Then you care.. because if they know their key exchange was compromised, they won't use those keys.. that's the kind of thing this is for.
As for when they change state, they change state when you are observing them (say, when they hit a detector). An observer in this case is no different than the desired recipient.... it's just that once you receive it, you cannot recreate it....
Really though.. that's just an indicate of the huge business.
Along with the Angels and their huge operations, tons of other people grow privately, and the Angels don't interfere... after all, they are, from what I hear, one of the easiest groups to offload your crop on.. they don't pay TOP dollar... but they'll take any amount.
So I've heard.
What was your question, exactly?
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 2, Informative
"IP" is a generic term, and doesn't refer to any specific section of law.
Nobody is contesting the copyright in unix.. and if SCO has the copyright, or at least the right to enforce them, then that still stands. THe "Trade secret" elements of Unix are what are not viable.. you can't pretend to have a "secret" That everyone has known about for more than a decade.
Linux is protect by only Copyright law, and there is no reason to invalidate it.
But that is even worse.. that tips off the power company that their power readings don't add up in an area... adn that's even MORE reason for them to investigate, as they can be reasonably sure that a)T hey have an infrastructure problem or b) someone is stealing power.
Oh, most indoor growing is NOT hydroponic.. with today's quality strains, there is little to no need of a hydroponic setup.
Hydroponics means using rocks & nutrient solution to grow the plants in, as opposed to dirt & fertilizer., which is what almost everyone does. Most of the smoke you find that is called "Hydro" is, in fact, not hydroponically grown, as there is no reason to grow it that way.
The best way to not tip off the cops is to not use tons of power, don't go overboard. grow small.
Then there was the legend of the guy who grew indoor tomatos all year round... and the cops busted him three or foure times on a tip from the power company. Eventually, a judge ruled the cops had to stop harassing him, as he was doing something completely legal.
Then, of course, he swapped out the tomatos for pot.
A cheap handheld consumer GPS has an accuracy of about 15 feet... but will show movement even smaller than that. Meaning: You can't trust the exact coordinates more than 15 feet, but relative to each other in an area, the coordinates are more accurate.. if you move 5 feet west, the gps will usually show yuo 5 feet west of wherever it said you were the previous time... it's not like the numbers jump around a 15 foot radius while yuo stand still.
As the other poster said, you can see which lane you used on the highway. I can tell if I'm in my front or back yard.
You aren't making sense.. what do you mean by "IP"? It's a generic term, covering lots of different things.
This either: a) Patent violation b) Copyright violation c) Trade Secret violation of some kind.
As we already discussed, if it's a patent violation, we would most likely know; they would have to say which patents we were violation.. you can't sue someone for violating your patent without telling them what patent it is.
IF it's copryight violation, then IBM may be at fault, but the rest of the world isn't; though it's not clear waht the remedy is, IBM would be guilty of stealing code from SCO and would have to make reparations. But as I said, pretend it's not linux, but OS/2 that's at issue.. would IBMs customers who are using OS2 be SUED by sco? No, of course not.
IF it's trade secret, then it would have to be something that really was sco's secret.... not something in the historic unix codebase that a bazillion people have access to without an NDA. Trade secrets are not like patents, you can't just claim anything you were doing was a secret, and nobody else should nkow.. taht's why you KEEP IT SECRET, and ONLY let it out to those whom you have binding legal agreements with, because otherwise NOTHING COULD PREVENT them from using your ideas. Meaning.. the rest of the linux world would have no fear.
THis is a FUD campaign, no doubt about it.
The thing about the copyrights is htis: It might be a semantic difference, that SCO purchased the licensing rights to Unix.. but they said they OWNED IT OUTRIGHT... and that appears to be not true... so it might seem like a tiny difference, but a judge won't appreciate lies.
Yes, but you miss the part where THEY ARE NOT SECRETS ANYMORE.
If someone steals your secret formula, you have recourse against them. If someone else knows they are using your stolen formula, right from this person, they can be charged as well.. but ultimately, at some point, you just can't claim someone is using your secret.. because it's not a secret... think about it. If you had recourse like that indefinately, what would we need patents for? You'd just say "Someone is using my secret!"
The force known as "Gravity". Specifically, the gravitational attraction between the earth and sun causes the earth to accelerate. That's how fast everything at this distance from the sun accelerates towards the sun.... which the earth is doing continuously.
The same thing, basically.. unrestricted player-kill.
If you killed in town, the town guards would go hostile on you.
If you killed in an area the Order guild chose to be policing, you would end up with them after you.
If you killed someone, you would have their friends after you....
The trick, of course, to PK, is those who run the game ensuring there is balance.. as you said, if a high level doing socially unacceptable things like killing noobs causes him to end up chased around teh entire game by a mob for a few hours, that's *AWESOME*. It's fun, there is purpose, anger, feeling, intent.. everyone gets into it.. that's how it SHOULD be, and one of the best gaming experiences there is.. for BOTH paties.
Knowing that if you walk through town and steal shit from some high level guy, nobody will mind if he kicks your ass gives you more incentive to be good at it, and chose your marks carefully.
Sanctuary had a good balance.. you could generally go out in a group and chase wahtever items you wanted, or level up, without fear of being attacked... except of course there was a guild who's job it was to stir shit up.... plus you had some nasty solo players out there with god-given superpowers who, although forbidden to group together or help each other, were allowed to do anything they wanted.. that was a good unstable element tot he game. You'd be having a great party kicknig some ass and suddenly a Forsaken woudl show up and maim half your party... and then you would spend an hour chasing him down.
I understand perfectly well how routing works, how transit between ISPs works, how routing announcements work in various protocols, and how most network gear works down to the individual bits, and in some cases, the electronics, at an analog level, right dow to the actual electron flow, OK?
I'm not IGNORING any fact.. I'm saying that if lack of address space became important enough, and they were lacking the ability to communicate amongst themselves, they could sacrifice the ability (at least temporarily) to communicate with the rest of the world. 2 billion people in the region is not exactly a TINY number, is it?
As for comparing ICANN to, say, the DMV or IRS, that's absurd, one has authority backed by LEGAL reprecussions. The other is simply, more or less, a standards body.
Let's not forget what the Internet is; it's a collection of networks that can communicate between each other because they choose to use the same protocols, and follow an addressing scheme that assures everyone has their own space, in a nutshell. Nothign prevents me from using your registered IP addresses on a network, adn nothing prevents my buddy from using someone elses, and nothing prevents us from linking our networks together over a leased line using those addresses, and it can grow that way forever.. it's all just a big cooperative effort. It works by choice; because there was no reason to argue the points these people made; dns worked, ip allocations we believe, for the most part, are just and fair, and the way they haev to be, etc.. and as long as it stays that way, it's good.
Now, if you want, you could say that this new Asian network I made up doesn't follow the ICANN rules strictly, so it shoudl be called AsiaNET instead of the Internet.. fine; that's cool. I mean, we have Internet2, right? Yes, internet2 does not route to Internet, and vice versa, because they are based on separate things.. but it IS possible to engineer some overlap in, if one wanted to (we don't).
I can draw you some detailed pictures if it helps.
What do you mean, you think google should be REGULATED?
ANYONE is free to purchase technology from them, start their own search engine to compete with it, or WHATEVER. "Control of such a vital tool?"
They control THEIR tool, and absolutely NOTHING they do prevents anyone from doing anything else. They are not an illegal monopoly and don't do anything that would seem to violate antitrust issues, legally or morally.
Remember, a monopoly is not a bad thing or an illegal thing, it's when a monopoly abuses it's position that it's bad.
Google can lose it's popularity just as fast as it gained it if they screw up and change things.
Who's reading superficial semantics? Obviously I can't give a legal opinion on every single jurisdiction out there, but if you google around, ask a few lawyers, and whatnot, you will find that trade secret protections lose a lot of their power if the secret is not KEPT.
Yes, if someone leaks it to someone else, andt hat person immediate implements it, knowing it's a secret, well, tehy can be liable too.. and if someone stole Coke's formula and sold it to five other beverage companies who immediately started using it, they could all be liable.... but in the long run, it's no longer a secret, and there are no longer protections.
If things worked the way YOU say they do, what would be the purpose of patents? None, you would say "This is our secret, even though everyone knows" and noboyd would be allowed to use it.
There is no trade secret status to unix, it's no longer a secret in any way, shape or form, not just because the code is widely available to anyone who wants it, but because of the previous BSD suits, and wahtnot. The amount of actual code that could beconsidered actually a proprietary secret is small indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
Definately a sales tactic. It won't be "more stable". RH isn't just "for hackers". Heck, real hackers don't use redhat anyway...
When end of life is reached, redhat will no longer provide updates, security or otherwise, most likely. So then, it's up to you what to do. Realistically, it should not be a problem for you to upgrade to a newer system by that time. Either that, or you'll have to keep track of security stuff by yourself (which you do anyway, right?)
I'm 29 years old.. and my handwriting has always been of the messy type. All through school, I was the messy handwriter. Now, it wasn't that I had some dysfunction.. I mean I could write, I have superb hand eye coordination.. but anything involving drawing, I have trouble doing neatly.
My current "handwriting" If you want to call it that, like most people, is an individual style, developed as a mix between what I can read again later, and what's most comfortable to write. It would certainly flunk me out of any penmanship class.. but most people could read it without too much difficulty, especially if I intend it to be for them.
I never write a capital E properly.. it looks more like a backwards 3 with a little leading curl on top... my capital D has no proper slanted lines.. just curves. And so on... Many of the letters don't fall into any known official writing system, but I guarantee you would recognize them anyway.
I guess what I'm saying is, in the end, there are two types of handwriters in our society: those who write for the sake of reading it back later, who invariably develop their own style, and those who adhere to an official writing standard.
For instance, a while back I took it upon myself to improve my handwriting. It's going okay, it just takes lots of practice. I picked up a Spencerian Handwriting tutorial.. now Spencerian is not the Italic or Cursive or whatever we were taught in school. it's what our grandfathers and great grandfathers were taught in school. And you know what? It's NOT hard! Yes, I struggle with it, but that's due to my aforementioned difficulties with pen and paper... It's extremely logical, and it's a system.. where every letter is composed of more or less seven basic skills (curves, lines, etc). It becomes easy to remember the logical way to make any letter, and the eye can tell if it actually looks right when written. If you havent' seen it, properly written spencerian is both easy to read and very pleasing to the eye. It's also designed for a fountain pen with a spencerian nib.. but I actaully find it easier to write with a fountain pen than a ballpoint, I just like the way it actually lets me feel the texture of the paper, I think.
So it got me thinking: From what I recall of learning to handwrite at an early age, it was boring. They didn't tell us anything about different styles, or that there was more than one way to write, or that in the future it woudln't even matter.. they just went ahead and showed us one thing. Now.. why don't we get back and take penmahship seriously? When you start teaching handwriting, pick something like spencerian. Teach them to write beautifully, not just to write. Or at least put people through a mandatory course in highschool, even just a couple days a week, on penmanship. Let them pick what style they want, but make them study it.
And then I think, does it matter? I do 90% of my work on computers, the only writing I do is a note to myself throughout the day on a notepad, or a quick post-it to someone else. And I type around 100wpm.... so writing serves no real practical purpose, other than as a hobby, I guess.
Now, my writing still sucks, but it's getting there.
What I mean is they are not obligated to release source THEY have written.. because you know everyoen is going to scream about how now they are "owed" wireless drivers.
Yeah, linksys has to follow either section 3(a) or 3(b). 3(c) is not available to them.
But his assumption about how kernel modules work is completely wrong.. though the INTENT might be something like he describes, it's not what Linus said.
The Linux kernel license says you can code proprietary modules, as long as the interface is part of the stock kernel (in other words, GPL)
So you can make a proprietary network driver, as long you don't haev to modify the main kernel to get it to work; you are under no obligation to release that source at all. If you have some way of hacking an entire realtime OS to look like a network drive to the kernel, that would comply.
So, linksys should be redistributing the linux sources, however, if their custom work is confined to modules & userland code, they are under no obligation to release the source to those drives. And as linux already has a kernel interface for network & wireless network, there is no reason to expect them to release that code.
However, the GPL still requires that they provide source, even if they have not modified it. If you redistribute, you must provide source, or at least a written offer for the source.
.. they are obligated to provide a copy of the source (sans their changes, if they are not within the scope of the gpl)
You can (section c) simply pass along the written offer YOU received, if you are simply redistributing, and not modifying, but only if it's NON-COMMERCIAL, and only if you yourself received the written offer. IF they are using stock linux kernels, there is no written offer, so
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
* a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
* b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
* c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Two points. I always have two points.
First, as someone else already said, just becuase it uses a linux kernel doesn't mean they modified anything, it could be a stock kernel. If they wrote userspace drivers and/or kernel modules using existing interfaces for their custom hardware, they are not obligated to release anything.
Secondly, if they weren't abiding by terms they had to according to the GPL, it would be COPYRIGHT violation, not license violation, as if you don't comply with the license, copyright law says they can't redistribute it. I know it seems like a silly point, but it's not.
People talk about the GPL being "tested in court" and whatnot.. but the fact is: If you don't accept the GPL as valid, then copyright law still stands, and says you can't redistribute, or make derivitive works. A judge can rule the GPL as invalid, but that would mean that nobody had any rights to redistribute anything.
It's not a license you had to accept and agree to in order to use the product.. so you can't "violate" it.
Linus, or any other kernel developer could go to linksys, and say "I have not granted you permission to use my copyrighted work, please demonstrate why you think you are allowed to do this". They can then either cite how the GPL allows them to do what they do, or concede that they have no right to distribute.
So as unclear as I can be.. it's not a GPL violation... and people are not forced to release code because of a nonexistant GPL violation... although that might be an acceptable remedy to all parties in most cases. They could also be forced to simply stop doing it.
Yup.
And those flamers were free to get together and do their own version, and publicize it all they wanted. As it stands, they didn't, and people used and liked ESRs version. So if he wants to overhaul it again, power to him....
If ya don't like it, please, start an open source jargon file.
When you are charging someone with breach of contract and possibly leaking trade secrets, you don't publish the information widely, you have it in sealed court documents.
Forget that it's SCO for a minute, and pretend it's someone with an honest theft of trade secret case...
Let's say someone stole the forumla to Coca Cola.. it was available to them under some NDA, but they breached their contract. In this case, you don't ask Coke to make it public so the world can decide if it's the same formula or not.. you seal the documents, have experts look at it, experts BOTH the prosecution and defendant accept as experts, and the case continues.
What SCO is claiming is not unlike this. Although SCO has threatened the linux world, currently it is IBM who sco has in court, and it's between IBM and SCO to decide what's fair.
What LinuxTAG did in Germany is a more appropriate response: Have sco stop sending out threatening letters and harming business unless they are going to show us some evidence.
It would have to be enough code of significant enough function to constitute copyright violation.
Although any transfer of code might be a breach of their contract with IBM, to claim copyright violation because of one line of code, for instance, is generally not going to work.
80 lines of code... again, it would depend what the code does, what it was originally based on, etc.
Regarding the GPL.. your point is valid, but let's reword your last statement. The GPL does not require you to transfer full license to patents, trade secrets, and copyrights.
Patents: Yes, it's implicit that if you have patents, you are granting royaltee free access to your patents under the GPL work.
Copyright: No, you are not assigning full license under copyright, only under the terms of the GPL. If you had full license, you could redidstribute under any license you want.
Trade Secret: These aern't like the others, and they aren't soemthign you register. You keep them secret. The act of publishing your own trade secret makes it not a secret anymore. The only way to protect trade secrets is by strict NDAs and strict control over who gets to learn them. So saying GPL requires assignment if trade secret is moot.
Yeah, most people who think rationally have considred that, in the particulars of the IBM case, SCO might actually have some case.
The thing is, even if IBM directly stole copyrighted code and used it, that does NOT make SCO the overlord of all things linux, it just means IBM fucked up.
The linux world ISN'T about stealing, and if SCO were to tell the world what code was stolen, and if we believed them (like, if it could be shown that the code came from IBM, etc) then the kernel developers at least woudl most likely remove the code immediately, and get to work on something else.
SCO still hasn't indicated if they are talking about copyright violation, or a trade secret. In other words, are they mad about this exact code, or are they mad about what the code actually does.
You might not care if they see you are listening in. but what if they are exchanging secret keys for normal encryption over the quantum channel? Then you care.. because if they know their key exchange was compromised, they won't use those keys.. that's the kind of thing this is for.
As for when they change state, they change state when you are observing them (say, when they hit a detector). An observer in this case is no different than the desired recipient.... it's just that once you receive it, you cannot recreate it....
Why was 100km a barrier in the first place?
Or is this just the first time someone bothered to try this over the distance in question.
What I want to know is this:
My criteria for a PDA is that it must be expandable, and not bulky.
Does this come with any kind of wireless built in, or a non-bulky wireless addon?
That is funny.
Really though.. that's just an indicate of the huge business.
Along with the Angels and their huge operations, tons of other people grow privately, and the Angels don't interfere... after all, they are, from what I hear, one of the easiest groups to offload your crop on.. they don't pay TOP dollar... but they'll take any amount.
So I've heard.
"IP" is a generic term, and doesn't refer to any specific section of law.
Nobody is contesting the copyright in unix.. and if SCO has the copyright, or at least the right to enforce them, then that still stands.
THe "Trade secret" elements of Unix are what are not viable.. you can't pretend to have a "secret" That everyone has known about for more than a decade.
Linux is protect by only Copyright law, and there is no reason to invalidate it.
But that is even worse.. that tips off the power company that their power readings don't add up in an area... adn that's even MORE reason for them to investigate, as they can be reasonably sure that a)T hey have an infrastructure problem or b) someone is stealing power.
Oh, most indoor growing is NOT hydroponic.. with today's quality strains, there is little to no need of a hydroponic setup.
Hydroponics means using rocks & nutrient solution to grow the plants in, as opposed to dirt & fertilizer., which is what almost everyone does. Most of the smoke you find that is called "Hydro" is, in fact, not hydroponically grown, as there is no reason to grow it that way.
The best way to not tip off the cops is to not use tons of power, don't go overboard. grow small.
Then there was the legend of the guy who grew indoor tomatos all year round... and the cops busted him three or foure times on a tip from the power company. Eventually, a judge ruled the cops had to stop harassing him, as he was doing something completely legal.
Then, of course, he swapped out the tomatos for pot.
A cheap handheld consumer GPS has an accuracy of about 15 feet... but will show movement even smaller than that. Meaning: You can't trust the exact coordinates more than 15 feet, but relative to each other in an area, the coordinates are more accurate.. if you move 5 feet west, the gps will usually show yuo 5 feet west of wherever it said you were the previous time... it's not like the numbers jump around a 15 foot radius while yuo stand still.
As the other poster said, you can see which lane you used on the highway. I can tell if I'm in my front or back yard.
You aren't making sense.. what do you mean by "IP"? It's a generic term, covering lots of different things.
This either:
a) Patent violation
b) Copyright violation
c) Trade Secret violation of some kind.
As we already discussed, if it's a patent violation, we would most likely know; they would have to say which patents we were violation.. you can't sue someone for violating your patent without telling them what patent it is.
IF it's copryight violation, then IBM may be at fault, but the rest of the world isn't; though it's not clear waht the remedy is, IBM would be guilty of stealing code from SCO and would have to make reparations. But as I said, pretend it's not linux, but OS/2 that's at issue.. would IBMs customers who are using OS2 be SUED by sco? No, of course not.
IF it's trade secret, then it would have to be something that really was sco's secret.... not something in the historic unix codebase that a bazillion people have access to without an NDA. Trade secrets are not like patents, you can't just claim anything you were doing was a secret, and nobody else should nkow.. taht's why you KEEP IT SECRET, and ONLY let it out to those whom you have binding legal agreements with, because otherwise NOTHING COULD PREVENT them from using your ideas.
Meaning.. the rest of the linux world would have no fear.
THis is a FUD campaign, no doubt about it.
The thing about the copyrights is htis: It might be a semantic difference, that SCO purchased the licensing rights to Unix.. but they said they OWNED IT OUTRIGHT... and that appears to be not true... so it might seem like a tiny difference, but a judge won't appreciate lies.
Yes, but you miss the part where THEY ARE NOT SECRETS ANYMORE.
If someone steals your secret formula, you have recourse against them. If someone else knows they are using your stolen formula, right from this person, they can be charged as well.. but ultimately, at some point, you just can't claim someone is using your secret.. because it's not a secret... think about it.
If you had recourse like that indefinately, what would we need patents for? You'd just say "Someone is using my secret!"
The force known as "Gravity". Specifically, the gravitational attraction between the earth and sun causes the earth to accelerate. That's how fast everything at this distance from the sun accelerates towards the sun.... which the earth is doing continuously.
The same thing, basically.. unrestricted player-kill.
If you killed in town, the town guards would go hostile on you.
If you killed in an area the Order guild chose to be policing, you would end up with them after you.
If you killed someone, you would have their friends after you....
The trick, of course, to PK, is those who run the game ensuring there is balance.. as you said, if a high level doing socially unacceptable things like killing noobs causes him to end up chased around teh entire game by a mob for a few hours, that's *AWESOME*. It's fun, there is purpose, anger, feeling, intent.. everyone gets into it.. that's how it SHOULD be, and one of the best gaming experiences there is.. for BOTH paties.
Knowing that if you walk through town and steal shit from some high level guy, nobody will mind if he kicks your ass gives you more incentive to be good at it, and chose your marks carefully.
Sanctuary had a good balance.. you could generally go out in a group and chase wahtever items you wanted, or level up, without fear of being attacked... except of course there was a guild who's job it was to stir shit up.... plus you had some nasty solo players out there with god-given superpowers who, although forbidden to group together or help each other, were allowed to do anything they wanted.. that was a good unstable element tot he game. You'd be having a great party kicknig some ass and suddenly a Forsaken woudl show up and maim half your party... and then you would spend an hour chasing him down.
That's fun.
This is getting WAYYY out of hand.
I understand perfectly well how routing works, how transit between ISPs works, how routing announcements work in various protocols, and how most network gear works down to the individual bits, and in some cases, the electronics, at an analog level, right dow to the actual electron flow, OK?
I'm not IGNORING any fact.. I'm saying that if lack of address space became important enough, and they were lacking the ability to communicate amongst themselves, they could sacrifice the ability (at least temporarily) to communicate with the rest of the world. 2 billion people in the region is not exactly a TINY number, is it?
As for comparing ICANN to, say, the DMV or IRS, that's absurd, one has authority backed by LEGAL reprecussions. The other is simply, more or less, a standards body.
Let's not forget what the Internet is; it's a collection of networks that can communicate between each other because they choose to use the same protocols, and follow an addressing scheme that assures everyone has their own space, in a nutshell. Nothign prevents me from using your registered IP addresses on a network, adn nothing prevents my buddy from using someone elses, and nothing prevents us from linking our networks together over a leased line using those addresses, and it can grow that way forever.. it's all just a big cooperative effort. It works by choice; because there was no reason to argue the points these people made; dns worked, ip allocations we believe, for the most part, are just and fair, and the way they haev to be, etc.. and as long as it stays that way, it's good.
Now, if you want, you could say that this new Asian network I made up doesn't follow the ICANN rules strictly, so it shoudl be called AsiaNET instead of the Internet.. fine; that's cool. I mean, we have Internet2, right? Yes, internet2 does not route to Internet, and vice versa, because they are based on separate things.. but it IS possible to engineer some overlap in, if one wanted to (we don't).
I can draw you some detailed pictures if it helps.
What do you mean, you think google should be REGULATED?
ANYONE is free to purchase technology from them, start their own search engine to compete with it, or WHATEVER. "Control of such a vital tool?"
They control THEIR tool, and absolutely NOTHING they do prevents anyone from doing anything else. They are not an illegal monopoly and don't do anything that would seem to violate antitrust issues, legally or morally.
Remember, a monopoly is not a bad thing or an illegal thing, it's when a monopoly abuses it's position that it's bad.
Google can lose it's popularity just as fast as it gained it if they screw up and change things.
You are preaching to the choir my man.
I'm just saying that I can see how people may feel that some action by google is "wrong" or "Unfair" or that they have been "Judged".
I never said they had a right to any restitution, just that I can see how it would impact them.
Who's reading superficial semantics? Obviously I can't give a legal opinion on every single jurisdiction out there, but if you google around, ask a few lawyers, and whatnot, you will find that trade secret protections lose a lot of their power if the secret is not KEPT.
Yes, if someone leaks it to someone else, andt hat person immediate implements it, knowing it's a secret, well, tehy can be liable too.. and if someone stole Coke's formula and sold it to five other beverage companies who immediately started using it, they could all be liable.... but in the long run, it's no longer a secret, and there are no longer protections.
If things worked the way YOU say they do, what would be the purpose of patents? None, you would say "This is our secret, even though everyone knows" and noboyd would be allowed to use it.
There is no trade secret status to unix, it's no longer a secret in any way, shape or form, not just because the code is widely available to anyone who wants it, but because of the previous BSD suits, and wahtnot. The amount of actual code that could beconsidered actually a proprietary secret is small indeed.