You are right he is a lawyer, and its his job to make sure that the judge sees the law his clients way.
But if he mangages to do this, in the case of GPL, all publishing companies and other propriatory software venders will be in big trouble. E.g. would it mean the end of preinstalled windows and the music industry.
This is why it is highly unprobable that a judge will see the law the SCO way. Copyright laws have bin around for a while and it will be very hard to introduce new interpretations.
Technically you are right, if Caldera/SCO unknowingly distributed the code that IBM produced and by contract was not allowed to share, then the pregnant cow defence would work. And SCO could cash in $$$$ from IBM.
But there is e-mail track showing SCO/Caldera emploees communicating with IBM developers on how to improve parts of the kernel that are now under dipute. The emails clearly shows that Caldera/SCO was not only distributing some unknown code snippets but infact helping IBM out developing them for the very purpose of putting it in the Linux kernel. At the very least it shows that SCO was aware of the existance of the disputed code. Yet they continued to distribute it using GPL.
In fact they still distribute it. They have a disclaimer about dispute on the download ftp site but if the GPL is invalid they have no right to distribute most of the Linux kernel, that is other peoples IP.
This GUI is very different from previous windows systems. It also contains a lot of new APIs that makes it likely to believe that many applications will have to be upgraded to run well on the new system and we can expect that that new software will be similar in style to the OS itself. There are also new file and networking systems that make an upgrade difficult.
Given the big differences I expect that users will need a lot of training before they can be productive with the new system. My guess is that a KDE or Gnome desktop would look less foreign to existing windows users than this new windows. Especially, since Gnome and KDE will have evolved considerably by the time Longhorn is to be released.
I also believe that most users don't like their OS control panels to become advertising areas for hardware and software venders. To me the GUI looks more web like than current windows versions. This is probably a mistake. This development started already in IE 4 that introduced the active desktop, but I don't see many people running that weblike interface today. And most people I know set windows XP in classic mode.
Probably not very efficient. Better to go for the end users. Boycott companies that do business with SCO and doesn't publicly declare that they use no SCO software.
If they knew what it looked like, why did they distribute it as GPL. After all SCO/Caldera has long history of contributing to the Linux kernel and they must have bin totally blind if they didn't spot all those millions of lines of Unix code in the kernel.
Perhaps GPL needs a clause that makes the licence revokable if the licencee is breaking the terms of any GPL licence, regardless who issued the licence and what software it applies to.
With this change, the samba team would have bin able to revoke the samba licence, if SCO broke GPL in some non samba related Linux kernel code.
Would there be any legal problems with such a change?
SCO do have a reason to show the code. It could be harder to get damages if they don't act as they value their IP. SCO has several times bin asked for the problematic code so that it can be removed from Linux and no longer do SCO any harm.
Revealing the code would not damage their case against IBM. Even if sombody managed to remove the code there would be ample evidence that it once was there. And they could still get damages from IBM.
So far the code we have heard roumers about is NUMA and RCU stuff. But that code is copyrighted by IBM. However, IBM made an agreement with SCO not to release that code to anybody else. IBM didn't honor that contract. This has nothing to do with Linux. SCO may even win over IBM in court and SCO still have no right to issue Unix runtime licences for Linux, since it is not theirs to license. The Linux users already have a valid GPL licence from IBM that still owns the copyright.
So if they want to go after Linux users they need to have something more. Perhaps they haven't and this is the reason why they don't want to disclose the code. If they did their extortion plan would fail.
When gas streetlights was replaced by electric ones, people who went around and lit the gas ligths became unemployed. But today we don't see a whole lot of them hanging around looking for jobs at the jobcenters. Did they all starve to death? No of course not. They got other jobs, and so will the MSCEs that might lose their jobs because of this.
Having people perform tasks in an inefficent manner just to conserve jobs is not good for economy. It makes the cost of production higher and that will make industry more vulnerable to competition from low cost countries in the third world.
Network trasparancy is absolutely essential. This is one feature that makes the free Unix desktop superior to windows in a corporate setting.
And we can expect that Linux or any other free unix have a much better chance to invade the office space than to invade the homes. This is mainly due to the fact that it is very easy to admin many users in Linux. In a corporate settin you can thus reduce the number of employees that deal with system management if you run Linux. At home you will probably have one admin regardless of what system you use, so here Linux has no advantage as it does in large scale installations.
Besides the overhead for network transparency is very small if you run your server locally.
I would rather think that people use the same software at home as they do at work. And as the article states, there are large savings in using Linux in large scale installations, it is likely that Linux will expand in the office space at the expense of Microsoft.
The reason people started to run MS software at home in the first place, was that they could pirate copies of that software from work.
Now that MS have better ways to prevent unauthorized use of its software through software activation this will no longer be possible. If companies want their employees to work from home they will have to pay licences for that.
My guess is that we will see dual boot installations at home. One linuxboot for office applications and one MS boot for games.
But as the Linux marketshare grows, more and more games and other entertainment articles will become available for Linux. This will lead to fewer and fewer people will bother with that dual boot and run just Linux.
One reason is that a Linux admin can handle much more users than a windows admin. In a small installation you have one Windows admin if you run windows, but you still would need one Linux admin.
Even though he would have far too little work to do most of the time you still want him around in case something goes wrong, so hiring a part time Linux admin wouldn't solve the problem. In a small organization Linux might even be more expensive than windows as the Linux admin may require higher salery.
But if you in a large organization can cut your admin staff in half by using Linux, it doesn't matter if the remaining ones want 10% higher salery.
And even that would not be a good reason for the bias, as there is an ongoing project to port qt3 to win32.
See http://kde-cygwin.sourceforge.net/qt3-win32/index. php
I have never tested it, as I live mostly in the Unix/Linux world, but the screen shots looks promising:
http://medlem.spray.se/larkang/qt3-win32/
I really don't see what Trolltech have done to deserve all this bad mouthing. They ship QT under GPL making it possible to use it for free software. They have also propriatory licenses for commersial development. Given that the speed of development and level of code reuse with QT is only rivaled by Java, he price for a commercial license is extremely low.
Hey, I think I spent more money on taxi to the airport when travelling between our offices in Malmo and Stockholm dureing a year. The price is also low compared to other tools of the trade for a professional software developer e.g. the Rational Rose.
It's true that Gtk is free for commercial use, but if I have to hire a developerone more month to iron out bugs in the windows version when developing a cross platform application I not only lose money in the form of salery to the programmer but I also lose time to market.
Somtimes free is too expensive. Even in the free software market, where the business model is based on supporting free applications rather than schrink wrapped software packages, this can bite you. If means that you have to spend more time with each support issue. To some extent this is good as you can charge your customer more money. But normally it would be better to be able to handle more customrs.
FSF did boycot Apple A/UX back when Apple and Microsoft was fighting in courts about look & feel.
This made life as an A/UX admin much more difficult. Not that GNU software didn't run, they did, but you had to port it yourself.
I think this actually contributed to Apples decision to discontinue A/UX. Other reasons for the decision was that Apple had its focus elsewhere. Just like SCO have changed focus to become a litegation company instead of a software house.
I'd say don't just drop support in gcc. Drop it in the entire product line.(emacs, autoconf,...) After all it is free software and SCO users can port it if they like.
When IBM let their lawyers lose, the SCO stock was in free fall. SCO simply had to put out a press release to control the damages. Even after the press release the stock is still below $10. It looks like McBride et al is running out of ammo.
The pressrelease doesn't tell who the poor victim is, but if there is one at all, I guess it is Microsoft. They wouldn't mind paying to support SCO in their battle against Linux
In other news it seams that SCO is not doing much other than pressreleases to defend themselves see http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5061548.html
If SCO calls the IBM claims unsubstansiated, they must be. After all, SCO is the leading has the leading industry authority in the field of unsubstantiated allegations.
A little strange comparison. It's more like your boss have a strange mental disorder tha forces him to put money in other peoples pockets with a smile on his face telling them that its a gift. In all other respects he acts normally and you have no reason to believe there is something wrong with him.
After a while he gets a new wife that thinks that he is clearly sick, and his new bride accuses you of embessselment. You agree to not wearing cloths with pockets so that he can put money in. But as you had no way of knowing he was ill, you will not have to repay his money.
SCO would probably make more money if the charged less for their "license". Let's say below $100. At that price people might actually have payed to be on the safe side from SCO lawsuits. At the current prices most companies are probably waiting until they are taken to court or the outcome of the Red Hat counter suit.
I disagree. The first place where Linux will replace Windows will be at work. This is because a Linux admin can handle more users than an equally skilled Windows admin. At home a familly consists of just a few people, so they doesn't benefit from Linux scalability.
But at work, your sysadmin is supposed to know whatever OS he is deploying in his organization. He is also likely to preconfigure the desktops of his users to fit whatever business tasks they are expected to perform.
This means that comparing a tweaked Linux against a tweaked winXP would be a far more interesting if you are contemplating switching computer platform for your company.
And when the workplace have switched, home users will follow.
People seam to be able to download other browser plugins. If they can download flash, quicktime realaudio or some of the numerous updates to windows media player I don't see why they shouldn't be able to download and install Java. Besides on some OSes Java is installed by default and some major PC venders install java on all the boxes they ship.
It seams that its bin quite some time since you last used Java. Nowdays there is no need to put a java application on the CLASSPATH. Provided the application is packaged correctly the end user just need to double click the jar file.
Or even better use java webstart. That way java applications can be started/installed using a link from a webbrowser. And everytime you started the application the network can be checked for updates.
Like you my objections to DRM are mostly technical.
In the 1980s it was quite popular with copy protection on software. I bought a math editor called Formula that could be installed 3 times on a hard drive. If you uninstalled it using their installation diskett you could remove your program and still have 3 installations.
Fair enough I thought as I don't use pirated software, but as time went by harddisks crashed and one day all the installatios was gone. By that time the company that made the program was long gone. Now my files was unaccesible.
Similar things is bound to happen in the wonderful world of DRM. And even if it doesn't I will always have a nervous feeling that it somday may happen. That feeling will make me more reluctant to buy CDs, DBDs etc. And just like the software companies of the 1980s experienced higher support costs for their product, so will DRM content providers. Meanign that you will pay a higher price for a product that is less likely to work.
Then there is another reason to dislike it. It makes it impossible for governments all over the world to create their own laws e.g. regarding fair use. It will be the technology that determin what is possible to do not the votes of the citizens.
This law has a good purpose to protect privacy, but it makes the mistake to involve technological ways of doing this.
This means that soner or later sombody will find a way to circumvent it. Perhaps just by moving the sites from Sweden. The text in the law is also very unclear as it allows cookies if they are needed to provide a service that the user have ordered.
The result will be that bad guys will still have cookies on their sites, while users will be pestered with "Do you allow cookies" messages on each and every sites where cookies have a legitimate use.
Probably a bad idea. This would mean that the SCO name got even more exposure. We should respond with facts whenever SCO makes some noises, but not aggressively. Look at the way IBM handles SCO FUD tactics and you see what I mean.
It would probably be better to discredit Linux alternatives. E.g. point out Microsoft may have patent problems in their DRM technology that is the basis of their "trusted computing". That way PHBs would have something else to be scared about.
Besides FUD would work better on organizatons with a high population awareness, as the risk of waking sleeping dogs is far less. This is exactly what Microsoft discoverd when trying FUD against Linux. There was too many who asked, what's Linux. And there was a Linux community that could give good answers to that question.
Don't misunderstand me I really hate MS use of DRM technology and part of me think that they deserve whats comming to them, but the idea that you should use the legal system as a way to make money instead of a proper business model really have to stop. Nowdays it seams impossible to chose an OS that isn't in some kind of legal problem.
Linux is under fire from SCO for introducing Sys V features into Linux.
Apple is under fire from Open Group due to their use of the Unix trade mark owned by Open Group in their marketing.
And now Microsoft again, as if their recent Timeline business wasn't bad enough.
It seams that it is more profitable for software companies to litegate than actually making what they are supposed to be good at, i.e. software.
Slashdot Mirror
You are right he is a lawyer, and its his job to make sure that the judge sees the law his clients way.
But if he mangages to do this, in the case of GPL, all publishing companies and other propriatory software venders will be in big trouble. E.g. would it mean the end of preinstalled windows and the music industry.
This is why it is highly unprobable that a judge will see the law the SCO way. Copyright laws have bin around for a while and it will be very hard to introduce new interpretations.
Technically you are right, if Caldera/SCO unknowingly distributed the code that IBM produced and by contract was not allowed to share, then the pregnant cow defence would work. And SCO could cash in $$$$ from IBM.
But there is e-mail track showing SCO/Caldera emploees communicating with IBM developers on how to improve parts of the kernel that are now under dipute. The emails clearly shows that Caldera/SCO was not only distributing some unknown code snippets but infact helping IBM out developing them for the very purpose of putting it in the Linux kernel. At the very least it shows that SCO was aware of the existance of the disputed code. Yet they continued to distribute it using GPL.
In fact they still distribute it. They have a disclaimer about dispute on the download ftp site but if the GPL is invalid they have no right to distribute most of the Linux kernel, that is other peoples IP.
This GUI is very different from previous windows systems. It also contains a lot of new APIs that makes it likely to believe that many applications will have to be upgraded to run well on the new system and we can expect that that new software will be similar in style to the OS itself.
There are also new file and networking systems that make an upgrade difficult.
Given the big differences I expect that users will need a lot of training before they can be productive with the new system. My guess is that a KDE or Gnome desktop would look less foreign to existing windows users than this new windows.
Especially, since Gnome and KDE will have evolved considerably by the time Longhorn is to be released.
I also believe that most users don't like their OS control panels to become advertising areas for hardware and software venders. To me the GUI looks more web like than current windows versions. This is probably a mistake. This development started already in IE 4 that introduced the active desktop, but I don't see many people running that weblike interface today. And most people I know set windows XP in classic mode.
Probably not very efficient. Better to go for the end users. Boycott companies that do business with SCO and doesn't publicly declare that they use no SCO software.
If they knew what it looked like, why did they distribute it as GPL. After all SCO/Caldera has long history of contributing to the Linux kernel and they must have bin totally blind if they didn't spot all those millions of lines of Unix code in the kernel.
Perhaps GPL needs a clause that makes the licence revokable if the licencee is breaking the terms of any GPL licence, regardless who issued the licence and what software it applies to.
With this change, the samba team would have bin able to revoke the samba licence, if SCO broke GPL in some non samba related Linux kernel code.
Would there be any legal problems with such a change?
SCO do have a reason to show the code. It could be harder to get damages if they don't act as they value their IP. SCO has several times bin asked for the problematic code so that it can be removed from Linux and no longer do SCO any harm.
Revealing the code would not damage their case against IBM. Even if sombody managed to remove the code there would be ample evidence that it once was there. And they could still get damages from IBM.
So far the code we have heard roumers about is NUMA and RCU stuff. But that code is copyrighted by IBM. However, IBM made an agreement with SCO not to release that code to anybody else. IBM didn't honor that contract. This has nothing to do with Linux. SCO may even win over IBM in court and SCO still have no right to issue Unix runtime licences for Linux, since it is not theirs to license. The Linux users already have a valid GPL licence from IBM that still owns the copyright.
So if they want to go after Linux users they need to have something more. Perhaps they haven't and this is the reason why they don't want to disclose the code. If they did their extortion plan would fail.
When gas streetlights was replaced by electric ones, people who went around and lit the gas ligths became unemployed. But today we don't see a whole lot of them hanging around looking for jobs at the jobcenters. Did they all starve to death? No of course not. They got other jobs, and so will the MSCEs that might lose their jobs because of this.
Having people perform tasks in an inefficent manner just to conserve jobs is not good for economy. It makes the cost of production higher and that will make industry more vulnerable to competition from low cost countries in the third world.
I totally agree.
Network trasparancy is absolutely essential. This is one feature that makes the free Unix desktop superior to windows in a corporate setting.
And we can expect that Linux or any other free unix have a much better chance to invade the office space than to invade the homes. This is mainly due to the fact that it is very easy to admin many users in Linux. In a corporate settin you can thus reduce the number of employees that deal with system management if you run Linux.
At home you will probably have one admin regardless of what system you use, so here Linux has no advantage as it does in large scale installations.
Besides the overhead for network transparency is very small if you run your server locally.
I would rather think that people use the same software at home as they do at work. And as the article states, there are large savings in using Linux in large scale installations, it is likely that Linux will expand in the office space at the expense of Microsoft.
The reason people started to run MS software at home in the first place, was that they could pirate copies of that software from work.
Now that MS have better ways to prevent unauthorized use of its software through software activation this will no longer be possible. If companies want their employees to work from home they will have to pay licences for that.
My guess is that we will see dual boot installations at home. One linuxboot for office applications and one MS boot for games.
But as the Linux marketshare grows, more and more games and other entertainment articles will become available for Linux. This will lead to fewer and fewer people will bother with that dual boot and run just Linux.
One reason is that a Linux admin can handle much more users than a windows admin. In a small installation you have one Windows admin if you run windows, but you still would need one Linux admin.
Even though he would have far too little work to do most of the time you still want him around in case something goes wrong, so hiring a part time Linux admin wouldn't solve the problem. In a small organization Linux might even be more expensive than windows as the Linux admin may require higher salery.
But if you in a large organization can cut your admin staff in half by using Linux, it doesn't matter if the remaining ones want 10% higher salery.
Are we really sure that its pirated?
This is something for homeland security to look into. Perhaps Bill & Steve needs a long free vacation in Cuba.
And even that would not be a good reason for the bias, as there is an ongoing project to port qt3 to win32.
. php
See http://kde-cygwin.sourceforge.net/qt3-win32/index
I have never tested it, as I live mostly in the Unix/Linux world, but the screen shots looks promising:
http://medlem.spray.se/larkang/qt3-win32/
I really don't see what Trolltech have done to deserve all this bad mouthing. They ship QT under GPL making it possible to use it for free software. They have also propriatory licenses for commersial development. Given that the speed of development and level of code reuse with QT is only rivaled by Java, he price for a commercial license is extremely low.
Hey, I think I spent more money on taxi to the airport when travelling between our offices in Malmo and Stockholm dureing a year. The price is also low compared to other tools of the trade for a professional software developer e.g. the Rational Rose.
It's true that Gtk is free for commercial use, but if I have to hire a developerone more month to iron out bugs in the windows version when developing a cross platform application I not only lose money in the form of salery to the programmer but I also lose time to market.
Somtimes free is too expensive. Even in the free software market, where the business model is based on supporting free applications rather than schrink wrapped software packages, this can bite you. If means that you have to spend more time with each support issue. To some extent this is good as you can charge your customer more money. But normally it would be better to be able to handle more customrs.
FSF did boycot Apple A/UX back when Apple and Microsoft was fighting in courts about look & feel.
This made life as an A/UX admin much more difficult. Not that GNU software didn't run, they did, but you had to port it yourself.
I think this actually contributed to Apples decision to discontinue A/UX. Other reasons for the decision was that Apple had its focus elsewhere. Just like SCO have changed focus to become a litegation company instead of a software house.
I'd say don't just drop support in gcc. Drop it in the entire product line.(emacs, autoconf,...) After all it is free software and SCO users can port it if they like.
When IBM let their lawyers lose, the SCO stock was in free fall. SCO simply had to put out a press release to control the damages. Even after the press release the stock is still below $10. It looks like
l
McBride et al is running out of ammo.
The pressrelease doesn't tell who the poor victim is, but if there is one at all, I guess it is Microsoft. They wouldn't mind paying to support SCO in their battle against Linux
In other news it seams that SCO is not doing much other than pressreleases to defend themselves see
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5061548.htm
Bad idea. That would be like saying SCO is right and that IP of SCO really exists in the kernel.
If SCO calls the IBM claims unsubstansiated, they must be. After all, SCO is the leading has the leading industry authority in the field of unsubstantiated allegations.
A little strange comparison. It's more like your boss have a strange mental disorder tha forces him to put money in other peoples pockets with a smile on his face telling them that its a gift. In all other respects he acts normally and you have no reason to believe there is something wrong with him.
After a while he gets a new wife that thinks that he is clearly sick, and his new bride accuses you of embessselment. You agree to not wearing cloths with pockets so that he can put money in. But as you had no way of knowing he was ill, you will not have to repay his money.
SCO would probably make more money if the charged less for their "license". Let's say below $100. At that price people might actually have payed to be on the safe side from SCO lawsuits. At the current prices most companies are probably waiting until they are taken to court or the outcome of the Red Hat counter suit.
I disagree. The first place where Linux will replace Windows will be at work. This is because a Linux admin can handle more users than an equally skilled Windows admin. At home a familly consists of just a few people, so they doesn't benefit from Linux scalability.
But at work, your sysadmin is supposed to know whatever OS he is deploying in his organization.
He is also likely to preconfigure the desktops of his users to fit whatever business tasks they are expected to perform.
This means that comparing a tweaked Linux against a tweaked winXP would be a far more interesting if you are contemplating switching computer platform for your company.
And when the workplace have switched, home users will follow.
People seam to be able to download other browser plugins. If they can download flash, quicktime realaudio or some of the numerous updates to windows media player I don't see why they shouldn't be able to download and install Java.
Besides on some OSes Java is installed by default and some major PC venders install java on all the boxes they ship.
It seams that its bin quite some time since you last used Java. Nowdays there is no need to put a java application on the CLASSPATH. Provided the application is packaged correctly the end user just need to double click the jar file.
Or even better use java webstart. That way java applications can be started/installed using a link from a webbrowser. And everytime you started the application the network can be checked for updates.
Like you my objections to DRM are mostly technical.
In the 1980s it was quite popular with copy protection on software. I bought a math editor called Formula that could be installed 3 times on a hard drive. If you uninstalled it using their installation diskett you could remove your program and still have 3 installations.
Fair enough I thought as I don't use pirated software, but as time went by harddisks crashed and one day all the installatios was gone. By that time the company that made the program was long gone. Now my files was unaccesible.
Similar things is bound to happen in the wonderful world of DRM. And even if it doesn't I will always have a nervous feeling that it somday may happen.
That feeling will make me more reluctant to buy CDs, DBDs etc. And just like the software companies of the 1980s experienced higher support costs for their product, so will DRM content providers. Meanign that you will pay a higher price for a product that is less likely to work.
Then there is another reason to dislike it. It makes it impossible for governments all over the world to create their own laws e.g. regarding fair use. It will be the technology that determin what is possible to do not the votes of the citizens.
This law has a good purpose to protect privacy, but it makes the mistake to involve technological ways of doing this.
This means that soner or later sombody will find a way to circumvent it. Perhaps just by moving the sites from Sweden. The text in the law is also very unclear as it allows cookies if they are needed to provide a service that the user have ordered.
The result will be that bad guys will still have cookies on their sites, while users will be pestered with "Do you allow cookies" messages on each and every sites where cookies have a legitimate use.
Probably a bad idea. This would mean that the SCO name got even more exposure. We should respond with facts whenever SCO makes some noises, but not aggressively. Look at the way IBM handles SCO FUD tactics and you see what I mean.
It would probably be better to discredit Linux alternatives. E.g. point out Microsoft may have patent problems in their DRM technology that is the basis of their "trusted computing". That way PHBs would have something else to be scared about.
Besides FUD would work better on organizatons with a high population awareness, as the risk of waking sleeping dogs is far less. This is exactly what Microsoft discoverd when trying FUD against Linux.
There was too many who asked, what's Linux. And there was a Linux community that could give good answers to that question.
Don't misunderstand me I really hate MS use of
DRM technology and part of me think that they deserve whats comming to them, but the idea that you should use the legal system as a way to make money instead of a proper business model really have to stop. Nowdays it seams impossible to chose an OS that isn't in some kind of legal problem.
Linux is under fire from SCO for introducing Sys V features into Linux.
Apple is under fire from Open Group due to their
use of the Unix trade mark owned by Open Group in their marketing.
And now Microsoft again, as if their recent Timeline business wasn't bad enough.
It seams that it is more profitable for software companies to litegate than actually making what they are supposed to be good at, i.e. software.