noisy old jazz recordings from companies that got rights to shitty old recordings after the artist died
That's an interesting way to characterize the Verve and Fantasy catalogs.;o)
Yeah, there is a lot of crap there, but you've got to think that their whole business model scared most major labels and made it hard for them to get top-notch stuff from all of their participating labels. But I have appreciated being able to fill out my Yo La Tengo collection. I guess I'd better finish getting those Thelonius Monk albums as well...
Well, IBM had a fully-paid, perpetual license - so SCO's not losing any revenues by attempting to revoke their license. I think SGI's may also be fully paid.
BeOS Max Edition is a free (as in beer) project done by BeOS fans that is based on the old BeOS R5 Personal Edition.
And it's primarily a hack to the kernel to allow it to run on modern processors, and to the installer to allow it to install to its own partition, which the PE release didn't (directly) allow.
You're right - let's tell all those developers at Red Hat, Mandrake, Debian, Gentoo, Slackware, et al., to get their heads out of their asses and start rewriting all of those crappy programs on freshmeat. For free. By next week.
Oh, and when you're fixing the apps, don't do anything that might upset the app maintainers.
Unfortunately what needs improvement is the GUIs of the programs, not the desktop itself.
This problem, however, is beyond the control of Red Hat or any other distro. It's up to the developers to decide whether they want their apps to integrate nicely into a desktop environment or not. But go to any Windows shareware/freeware download sites, and you'll find just as many apps with awful GUI/widget choices.
Personal names. Use 's for the possessive case in English names and surnames whenever possible; i.e. in all monosyllables and disyllables, and in longer words accented on the penult, as Burns's, Charles's, Cousins's, Dickens's, Hicks's, St. James's Square, Thomas's, Zacharias's. It is customary, however, to omit the 's when the last syllable of the name is pronounced/-IZ/, as in Bridges', Moses'. Jesus' is an acceptable liturgical archaism.
I believe the requirement for SCO to turn over the majority of the licensing revenues to Novell ended last fall, which is when SCO started fishing more aggressively for more licensees, hooking MS and Sun, and pissing off IBM. I don't recall what the contracts say about their status as an "agent", however, or Novell's remaining interest in the UNIX contracts.
According to Red Hat's complaint, SCO has been putting on their dog-and-pony show for some of Red Hat's institutional investors. This is about more than just some CTO reading InfoWorld while he takes a dump and deciding it's too risky to go forward with that Linux project the company's been planning.
It could be possible that IBM has some very secretive, well-laid plans in the works
I would rather hope (and expect) that they've got their legal staff working on their answer to SCO's amended complaint. Sugar on top would be a motion for summary judgment in the same FedEx envelope.
My favorite was Off the Record in San Diego. The original store was actually in two small buildings (converted homes). One had the new stuff/bootlegs/posters/etc., and the other had the used records. Treasure was to be found in both buildings. Just before I moved away, they opened a second, shinier store in Hillcrest that just wasn't the same. Too much glass and neon.
Laura Didio may indeed be in over her head with respect to analyzing the code, but please do yourself a favor and look up what "discovery phase" means in the context of a lawsuit before you make any more comments.
On December 6, 1995, Novell completed the sale of its UnixWare product line to the Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. (SCO). The Company expects to report a gain on this transaction in the first quarter of fiscal 1996. Under the agreement, Novell received approximately 6.1 million shares of SCO common stock, resulting in an ownership position of approximately 17% of the outstanding SCO common stock. The agreement also calls for Novell to receive a revenue stream from SCO based on revenue performance of the purchased UnixWare product line.
This revenue stream is not to exceed $84 million net present value, and will end by the year 2002. In addition, Novell will continue to receive revenue from existing licenses for older versions of UNIX System source code.
So it seems SCO probably gets to keep all the money it collects from now on. None of that, of course, says anything about who owns the IP rights.
"The point is that if SCO's IP *was* misappropriated, then it's not SCO's license that's voided, it's the GPL that's been voided (with respect to SCO's code only)."
But if SCO, after it has learned of the misappropriation, *knowingly* offers a sublicense to *its own customers* on that SCO code in the Linux kernel, that is a violation of the GPL and nullifies SCO's license to distribute the remaining GPL'd code. If their customers cannot enjoy the full rights extended by the GPL for the portions tainted by the misappropriated code, SCO (and anyone else) is enjoined by the GPL from distributing the software at all.
It's not quite that simple. SCO v. IBM is primarily a breach of contract case, *not* an IP-violation case, and SCO does have rights to act as a licensing agent for the Unix IP. It all depends on whether IBM took what they are alleged to have taken from SCO, and whether the IBM/SCO contracts for Project Monterey restricted IBM from doing anything with it outside of Project Monterey.
The SCO v. IBM case arises from Project Monterey, which was a joint venture between SCO and IBM to port Unix to IA-64 or some such thing. IBM eventually pulled the plug, and focused instead on Linux.
SCO's primary claims against IBM seem to be that IBM took code that had been either brought by SCO into the project, or (more likely) developed by/in conjunction with IBM as part of the project, and used it in its subsequent Linux development.
So, even though SCO's products didn't (don't?) have the enterprise features they are accusing IBM of "stealing" from SCO, it seems to be their contention that the Project Monterey work was intended to develop such features, thus the claims for breach of contract and unfair competition.
SCO claims of pre-existing IP violations in "every" Linux distro would have no bearing on the IBM case.
I'm not sure I fully understand the GPL terms about the status of code distributed in violation of the GPL. I guess you are still allowed to use it and modify it, but you can't distribute it.
I believe it would be up to any individual copyright holders (or the FSF) to decide whether to sue SCO for violating the license on their code. And I'm not sure there could be any claims for damages, given that, if SCO is correct in their allegations, many/all of the other distros would be in the same boat.
The argument that IBM compromised their IP without their knowledge is moot if they continued to distribute after they knew about it (which they did). Even if they had a case in the first place, which they don't, they committed a serious tactical error by not stoping their distribution of Linux immediately.
I'm not positive a judge would go that far. However, the situation would probably mitigate any monetary damages SCO is asking for.
They would also have been in violation of the GPL during the period between when they became aware of the violation and when they ceased distribution. And they may be able to indemnify their customers for use of their own code, but they don't have the standing to indemnify them from using tainted GPL code.
"But the program was distributed. Isn't that their point?"
And SCO continued to distribute their distro after filing suit against IBM due to this alleged infringement. If they had proof of infringement at the time they filed suit, they should have immediately ceased distribution of their Linux product and should have notified their customers to prevent further redistribution. They are now indemnifying their own customers from liability, presumably by covering the SCO code under another license. However, this puts them in violation of the GPL license covering all of the non-SCO, legitimately-GPL'd code in their distro.
Slashdot Mirror
noisy old jazz recordings from companies that got rights to shitty old recordings after the artist died
;o)
That's an interesting way to characterize the Verve and Fantasy catalogs.
Yeah, there is a lot of crap there, but you've got to think that their whole business model scared most major labels and made it hard for them to get top-notch stuff from all of their participating labels. But I have appreciated being able to fill out my Yo La Tengo collection. I guess I'd better finish getting those Thelonius Monk albums as well...
Well, IBM had a fully-paid, perpetual license - so SCO's not losing any revenues by attempting to revoke their license. I think SGI's may also be fully paid.
BeOS Max Edition is a free (as in beer) project done by BeOS fans that is based on the old BeOS R5 Personal Edition.
And it's primarily a hack to the kernel to allow it to run on modern processors, and to the installer to allow it to install to its own partition, which the PE release didn't (directly) allow.
You're right - let's tell all those developers at Red Hat, Mandrake, Debian, Gentoo, Slackware, et al., to get their heads out of their asses and start rewriting all of those crappy programs on freshmeat. For free. By next week.
Oh, and when you're fixing the apps, don't do anything that might upset the app maintainers.
Unfortunately what needs improvement is the GUIs of the programs, not the desktop itself.
This problem, however, is beyond the control of Red Hat or any other distro. It's up to the developers to decide whether they want their apps to integrate nicely into a desktop environment or not. But go to any Windows shareware/freeware download sites, and you'll find just as many apps with awful GUI/widget choices.
Who is the shit-kicker now?
That would be old Bill himse'f: http://shakespeareauthorship.com/name1.html
Fowler's, 3rd Ed.:
/-IZ/, as in Bridges', Moses'. Jesus' is an acceptable liturgical archaism.
Personal names. Use 's for the possessive case in English names and surnames whenever possible; i.e. in all monosyllables and disyllables, and in longer words accented on the penult, as Burns's, Charles's, Cousins's, Dickens's, Hicks's, St. James's Square, Thomas's, Zacharias's. It is customary, however, to omit the 's when the last syllable of the name is pronounced
Shame on you, you're going to be responsible for the death of a corporation!
... er, I mean, out of their second home.
Not only that, but you'll be responsible for Darl and his wife and children being thrown out into the streets
The sentence, "Paul loves pizza more than me (do)." is incorrect
Unless he actually meant, "Paul loves pizza more than (he loves) me."
I believe the requirement for SCO to turn over the majority of the licensing revenues to Novell ended last fall, which is when SCO started fishing more aggressively for more licensees, hooking MS and Sun, and pissing off IBM. I don't recall what the contracts say about their status as an "agent", however, or Novell's remaining interest in the UNIX contracts.
I think it's an "opinion piece", and it's the same guy who in June referred to linux advocates as "crunchies", whatever the heck that means.
According to Red Hat's complaint, SCO has been putting on their dog-and-pony show for some of Red Hat's institutional investors. This is about more than just some CTO reading InfoWorld while he takes a dump and deciding it's too risky to go forward with that Linux project the company's been planning.
It could be possible that IBM has some very secretive, well-laid plans in the works
I would rather hope (and expect) that they've got their legal staff working on their answer to SCO's amended complaint. Sugar on top would be a motion for summary judgment in the same FedEx envelope.
JS Bach had 17 kids 'cause his organ had no stop.
(stolen from Garrison Keillor)
My favorite was Off the Record in San Diego. The original store was actually in two small buildings (converted homes). One had the new stuff/bootlegs/posters/etc., and the other had the used records. Treasure was to be found in both buildings. Just before I moved away, they opened a second, shinier store in Hillcrest that just wasn't the same. Too much glass and neon.
That's because the press release was in response to SCO's announcement that it is terminating IBM's AIX license.
Laura Didio may indeed be in over her head with respect to analyzing the code, but please do yourself a favor and look up what "discovery phase" means in the context of a lawsuit before you make any more comments.
Hmm, nothing about Linux 9.0 there. They do mention Red Hat Linux 9, though.
So it seems SCO probably gets to keep all the money it collects from now on. None of that, of course, says anything about who owns the IP rights.
"The point is that if SCO's IP *was* misappropriated, then it's not SCO's license that's voided, it's the GPL that's been voided (with respect to SCO's code only)."
But if SCO, after it has learned of the misappropriation, *knowingly* offers a sublicense to *its own customers* on that SCO code in the Linux kernel, that is a violation of the GPL and nullifies SCO's license to distribute the remaining GPL'd code. If their customers cannot enjoy the full rights extended by the GPL for the portions tainted by the misappropriated code, SCO (and anyone else) is enjoined by the GPL from distributing the software at all.
It's not quite that simple. SCO v. IBM is primarily a breach of contract case, *not* an IP-violation case, and SCO does have rights to act as a licensing agent for the Unix IP. It all depends on whether IBM took what they are alleged to have taken from SCO, and whether the IBM/SCO contracts for Project Monterey restricted IBM from doing anything with it outside of Project Monterey.
"The bigger question is, why does SCO think it can sue IBM for putting stuff into the kernel that SCO doesn't even offer?"
0 0- August/000557.html
http://linux.rice.edu/pipermail/rlug-discuss/20
The SCO v. IBM case arises from Project Monterey, which was a joint venture between SCO and IBM to port Unix to IA-64 or some such thing. IBM eventually pulled the plug, and focused instead on Linux.
SCO's primary claims against IBM seem to be that IBM took code that had been either brought by SCO into the project, or (more likely) developed by/in conjunction with IBM as part of the project, and used it in its subsequent Linux development.
So, even though SCO's products didn't (don't?) have the enterprise features they are accusing IBM of "stealing" from SCO, it seems to be their contention that the Project Monterey work was intended to develop such features, thus the claims for breach of contract and unfair competition.
SCO claims of pre-existing IP violations in "every" Linux distro would have no bearing on the IBM case.
I'm not sure I fully understand the GPL terms about the status of code distributed in violation of the GPL. I guess you are still allowed to use it and modify it, but you can't distribute it.
I believe it would be up to any individual copyright holders (or the FSF) to decide whether to sue SCO for violating the license on their code. And I'm not sure there could be any claims for damages, given that, if SCO is correct in their allegations, many/all of the other distros would be in the same boat.
The argument that IBM compromised their IP without their knowledge is moot if they continued to distribute after they knew about it (which they did). Even if they had a case in the first place, which they don't, they committed a serious tactical error by not stoping their distribution of Linux immediately.
I'm not positive a judge would go that far. However, the situation would probably mitigate any monetary damages SCO is asking for.
They would also have been in violation of the GPL during the period between when they became aware of the violation and when they ceased distribution. And they may be able to indemnify their customers for use of their own code, but they don't have the standing to indemnify them from using tainted GPL code.
"But the program was distributed. Isn't that their point?"
And SCO continued to distribute their distro after filing suit against IBM due to this alleged infringement. If they had proof of infringement at the time they filed suit, they should have immediately ceased distribution of their Linux product and should have notified their customers to prevent further redistribution. They are now indemnifying their own customers from liability, presumably by covering the SCO code under another license. However, this puts them in violation of the GPL license covering all of the non-SCO, legitimately-GPL'd code in their distro.