Considering how meager the resources of the "community" are, I think spending the money directly on development is far more effective. Now Redhat may want to use a company like Ernie Ball in "Switch" add aimed at corporations, but Redhat is not "the community."
This is where RedHat, IBM and others who are profiting from free software have an obligation. It appears to me that they are advertising already, in order to sell products they sell, but this is SUCH a different situation, figuring out a marketing strategy is tricky. What is IBM to do, run TV ads that say "Be different! Use Linux!"? IBM doesn't want to pick a particular 'brand' of Linux to push, to remain neutral about distributors, although they do seem to prefer SuSe and to a lesser degree RedHat.
Coming from a marketing background, I can see how its not that easy. Several companies do push Linux, but that doesn't put anything back into the community by itself. IBM has shown it is willing to put money back into the community, plus hiring free software authors (so it can sell servers) and right now by fighting the big fight with SCO. Because Linux isn't a single product, it will require some thought before anyone could create an advertising campagne for it.
On another note, Im changing from Gibson strings back to Ernie Ball (likely Regular or Super Slinkies). They also make exceptional guitars, the original "Cry Baby" Waa Waa pedal, and tons of other accessories. Eddie Van Halen plays Ernie Ball guitars when he is not endorsing Peavey stuff. You can find them at ernieball.com or buy their stuff from any decent music store or at musiciansfriend.com
You don't need to agree to the GPL to modify GPL software. You only need to agree to the GPL to distribute a version you have modified. Nothing stops anyone taking a GPLed program, modifying it and using it personally. (Where "personally" applies to any legal "person".)
You are incorrect on this point, but don't worry, many others are as well. Quoting the Preamble to the GPL "To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it."
Quoting the GPL "4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance."
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it."
So technically, you CAN'T modify it if you don't comply with the GPL. You don't have to release your changes to the code up unless you DISTRIBUTE it. You can change it all you want without disclosure as long is it stays inhouse.
Again. "6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License."
The GPL divides your rights this way, Use (no acceptance of the GPL needed) Modify (must accept GPL, do not have to give out source code) Distribute (must accept GPL and must make source reasonably available). This is one of the good things about it, it treats each act as a seperate act, because they ARE seperate acts. The author has the right to limit your ability to modify their work.
You assumption is a common misconceptions, after all, the GPL is pretty unique in this respect. It was the first license designed to protect everyone as a whole as much as the original author. You can read a text version of the GPL here.
So SCO only has the right to USE any GPL software if they don't agree, as long as they do NOT modify it. Since they are saying the GPL is invalid, thus they do not agree with it, they are infringing on the author's copyrighted works if they modify any GPL programs for their own use, unless they have worked out a seperate license with the author(s) of the work they want to modify. Personally, I think this is enforcable, and the FSF have a potential case against SCO for distributing Linux that has been modified. It would be harder to prove they are USING it without a search warrant to see, but I am pretty sure they have modified some of the packages they have on their own FTP site, a clear violation of their license. This is one reason FSF recommends you assign your copyright to them, so a single agency can pursue legal action, instead of relying on several different copyright owners/authors.
yes, that's true... but that code doesn't belong to SCO. It's not AT&T code, it's BSD code, so SCO has no right to it.
Actually, SCO has every legal right to use and distribute it, under the BSD license. They just have no legal basis to prevent others from doing the same. More than likely, they copied this code from BSD, dropped the copyright notice over time (BSD requires you maintain the notice, just like GPL) and now think it is theirs, unaware of its origins.
to short a stock, you have to provide enough capital to cover a gain, ie, about 10%. which means if the stock goes UP 10%, you have to cover your call with more cash, or lose your money. This is why shorting stocks is so risky. If you short a stock at 10, and it keeps going up and up and up, you have to keep cover calling it, and there is no limit to your loses. when you buy a stock at 10 bucks, the most you can lose is 10 bucks. if you short it at 10, and it goes to 100 while you cover it (instead of buying to cover your short) then you lost 90 per share.
Plus commissions. You may be better off looking at options, where the risk is a bit more limited.
But you can't LEGALLY claim that a license is not valid in one instance, and yet claim it is in another. I forget the legal term, but you legally CAN'T do this. It won't past muster. Its not an individual issue at that point, since its exactly the same license, and they are not claiming that the GPL is invalid as it applies to the kernel, they are claimin it is INVALID in all senses. I know some paralegal or lawyer can help me with this one, there is a specific term for why they can't do this, and its been over 10 years since I worked in a law office.
Out of the many many years I have been doing this, I have NEVER heard anyone pronouce them "SKOH" as a word. It's SCO, "ess, see, oh". As in short for Santa Cruz Operation (as you stated).
Do you pronouce IBM as "ib-em"? BSD as "bsssd!", AIX as "ayix"? Usually all capital letters makes it clear that it is initials, not a word. Well, I gotta go and read some of the Ganew Gipel (GNU/GPL) license...:)
I agree with the guy. There are three SCO stories on the front page right now. Do we really need to debate SCO's every (rather predictable) move?
I find it entertaining. Its kind of like WWE Pro Wrestling. Yea, you can tell who is going to win before the real battle starts, and its mainly about the trash talking from IBM and SCO, plus all the paid and unpaid advocates. But I like a couple SCO stories a day. August is a boring month for politics, usually, since congress is on recess, so this works as a nice substitute.
You don't HAVE to read the SCO stories. TheRegister.com has lots of great stories other than SCO, as well. But some of us are hooked on this, like a cheap soap opera. Except it ain't cheap.
See that little bit in Section 4 that says 'the Program'? That means that each GPL license applies to the code it is with, rather than a blanket provision on all GPL software. So SCO has almost certainly violated the Linux kernel GPL license by attempting to sublicense the kernel but that does not remove their rights to distribute Samba 3 under the GPL.
I think the simple point that keeps getting missed is this:
1. You can use GPL software no matter what. No license is needed to use it. 2. If you want to modify or distribute it, you must accept and agree to the GPL since it is copyrighted code. 3. If you flately state that the GPL is invalid or void, then you are implying that you do not agree with it, thus you can't distribute any software under that license. There is nothing else that gives you the authority to distribute it, so you must cease distributing it now. No current customer, no potential customer, no one. If you don't secure a seperate license deal with all the copyright holders, you are violating copyright laws.
This is backed up by SCO's press releases and current law filings. They are flatly saying that they do not agree and accept the GPL, so they give up their rights to distribute any GPL software, period. No matter what else is in the lawsuit, they are infringing on FSF by violating the GPL.
Forget everything else: this is all that matters, they are distributing copyrighted material without a distribution license.
Problem is that your going to need an interviewer who isn't afraid to jump in and interrupt his/her guests to keep SCO from just fillabustering. Even though he can be annoying, I think Bill O'reilly would be great at handling the SCO guys.
I agree. He can be a bit overly populist for my tastes, but he has the ability to nail asses to the wall and make them accountable. His work with the Red Cross problems is a good example. His goal wasn't to point fingers, it was to make changes, and he did. There are few people who could do it as well.
But a judge has already ruled that since running a program copies it from the hard drive to RAM, then running software is making a copy of it. Therefore, using it is the same as copying it. That is why EULA's exist. Because if you don't agree with them, it is illegal to run the software, period. So, becauase of that boneheaded ruling, if you do not agree to the GPL, you cannot run the software, either. At least, not according to US law.
I am not familiar with that ruling, and would have to say I would disagree with it anyway, but if you have a link to info on it, please send it this way.
I already knew the quote, and I went and downloaded the software, even tho I am not a current or past customer, demonstrating they are distributing it.
this all boils down to how you define distribute. They say they are not distributing because of this disclaimer. I don't think this would hold up in court since anyone CAN get it from the site.
4. If you disagree with the GPL you are not allowed to use the software.
My understanding is that if you disagree, you can't DISTRIBUTE. You don't have to agree to USE it. Even tho SCO says they no longer distribute, or rather they only give access to current customers to keep up their support, anyone can log into ftp.sco.com and download all the GNU software they want.
Try reading the actual comment before running your moth. I plainly stated I was honest. I wouldn't work somewhere where I had to lie. My job is to show a product in its best possible light, not to lie.
Do your own dirty work before you buy. As I clearly stated, its not my job to give you 100% of the info on products, thats the salesman's job. My job is to get you to call him.
Try logging in when you comment if you want me to take you serious.
Second, we have no way of knowing from this where these comments originated. We don't know who wrote it, under what license, how it got into either code base and whether it went from one to the other or from some place else into both.
go google it and you will see we DO know where it came from. It is actually public domain now, its code from 1979 (just google the first sentence in quotes) Here is one example. My understanding that the code is also in BSD.
So SCO has demonstrated that Linux has Public Domain code in it, just like SCO. Unless SCO owns the public domain, this code is totally meaningless. The funnier part is how they tried to ROT 255 it with a different font, even tho the code has no IP value whatsoever.
This IS a bogus example of SCO's claim. They can't claim PD from 32V as SCO IP, especially since Caldera already BSD'd 32V, and this code is pre-32V, thus likely PD. (got that?):)
I see only one problem with your arguments about the MPAA dinosaur-- at present they seem to have a stranglehold on screens. I don't know enough about how the industry operates or to what extent the MPAA actually owns theatres, but when the only movies the huge megaplexes will play are the ones distributed by the MPAA juggernaut, then moviegoers will never have a choice about what they see.
What you say is true but they do have choices: Don't go at all. This is what many are doing, instead renting dvd's, which makes movie makers less money, or buying dvds used. Or pirating them. Or watching less movies.
To be honest, what keeps most people from pirating movies is there are so few worth downloading for free.
Who the fuck are you? Why the fuck should they show the code to your majesty?
Because they are saying you owe $699 (limited time discount) for each cpu you run linux on, and no court has issued a ruling on the merits of the case. If they had not told every linux user that we must PAY, then I would agree that they don't need to show anything outside of court. But they didn't. So, since they are demanding payment, and are talking of sueing, then they need to put up or shut up. THEY chose to put themselves in a position that other would demand more proof.
Now go crawl back under your bridge you spineless AC troll.
Advertising is the enemy of information and communication. In a world ruled through corporate centralisation, censorship is a logical extension of that fact.
I have spent many years in the marketing biz, and you do have a point. My job is to push the buttons necessary to get customers to buy. Its not my job to give a 100% accurate description of the product so the consumer can decide. This is balanced with the fact that I MUST be factual in how I describe. (really)
This is why colas sell 'image' instead of 'this cola tastes good', for instance. Its called 'selling the sizzle, not the steak', and is pretty much 101 in marketing. If I am selling winter coats, for instance, I don't show you how warm you will be, I show you how good you might look, how others are impressed with your good taste in clothes, and maybe, just maybe, girls will flock to you because you are now so cool. I didn't say anything about how warm it makes you, so if the wind cuts through it like a hot knife through butter, then I have not lied.
BTW, its good to have a healthy disrespect for your own industry (which I do) but it is the CONSUMER'S job to make sure its the right product for them. So yes, a company that makes bad 'coats' doesn't want anyone to know that. The problem is, the MPAA's head is too big for its own good, and they seem to blame the people who bought their product and discovered it sucked and it hasn't lived up to their expectations. The customer is the problem, and their text messaging is clearly interfering with their marketing, so they blame (and virtually lash out) against them. This is the SCO way of doing things.
Personally, I don't worry about it too much. The MPAA seems perfectly capable of shooting themselves in the foot, and as long as they blame the sorry customers for not enjoying the movie, then they are sealing their own fate. Fortunately, movies are a very profitable industry, and I have high hopes that some studios will work to fill the void, so this lull in movie quality won't last forever. Meanwhile, this blame game serves to reduce the influence of the MPAA with the public, creating more resentment. With high bandwidth, faster computers, new software and P2P as strong as ever, they make it more likely that people will steal movies rather than buy them, because they feel no sorrow for anything related to the MPAA.
SCO can't possibly order an injunction against the entire kernel because most (all?) of it isn't copyrighted by them. SCO could probably order an injunction against certain bits of contested code, but it would have to tell what they are in order for that to be granted. And besides, stopping the shipment of a Linux kernel would hurt SCO's FUD-based revenue stream and injure their long-term prospects even more.
The idea that a judge could be numbminded enough to actually order an injunction against the entire 2.4+ tree is almost funny. Hell, it is funny. Considering a huge chunk of the internet currently uses 2.4, even shutting down for long enough to backgrade to a 2.2 kernel....omg, too funny.... not even considering all the firmwear that would have to be upgraded instantly. This goes beyond millions of machines. I seriously doubt you could use your ATM, phones in some places, and certainly not the internet.
"Ok everyone: Effective at midnight, every 2.4 kernel must be shut down. This means every router, server, Tivo or whatever that uses 2.4+ kernels. We hope this doesn't cause an inconvenience."
Yea, what we should do is convince everyone to COMPLY for 24 hours, if this is ordered. And after the townfolk march in with pitchforks and run this judge out on a rail, we can reboot the servers. You might as well have an injunction on driving a car.
The high school that I just graduated from was sponsored by Pepsi. As in, "Montgomery Blair High School, brought to you by Perpsi." No Coca-Cola products were sold anywhere on-campus. The school principal signed a 10-year, $600,000 contract with Pepsi. And you know what? Maybe it was worth it. There are severe budget shortfalls affecting all of us now, and the school really needed that extra money for textbooks and such.
I guess I will have to just chalk this up as "the choice of a new generation"......
You seem to be confusing innocence with willful ignorance. If you want to own and use a computer, especially one connected to the internet, you have an implied obligation to make sure you know how to use and care for it properly. Just like when you own a car. When your ignorance begins to impact and harm other people, any claim of innocence gets tossed right out.
Great, so YOU go explain to my mom how to. I live 1300 miles away, I get my sister to when possible, and I do when I visit, but shes 67, and has no hope of being L33+. "Obligation" is a bit harsh. We want everyone on the internet (it made it cheaper) and we talk about being inclusive, but they we talk shit about how superior we are and people who get confused about updates should not be on the net.
The problem isn't my mom. The problem is the dickholes who write very bad OS software that must be patched weekly. And no, she wasn't infected. I had been down visiting and updated her.
Why do slashdotters think they are so good at coming up with analogies? You see this in every single article. Someone creates a perfectly fine analogy and 8 people respond saying "actually, it would be more like your neighbor/daughter/lawn gnome..."
Some people just relate differently to unfamiliar analogies because they have a different set of experiences (ie: the analogy may not be meaningful if you have never experienced it before).
I can make an analogy to musicial instruments (I play several), but if you have never played one, it would be meaningless to you, so you have to draw a different analogy, perhaps comparing to snow boarding (which I have no clue on) so its meaningless to me. Someone from from Europe may not be able to understand an analogy about "a 4th of July parade", etc.
Slashdot is full of very different people from different places. Not everyone is fat, nerdy and like the comic book guy in the Simpsons (ok, most, but not me). A large minority are not even from the US. Its not unusual to use very different analogies because we are from such different backgrounds.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering how meager the resources of the "community" are, I think spending the money directly on development is far more effective.
Now Redhat may want to use a company like Ernie Ball in "Switch" add aimed at corporations, but Redhat is not "the community."
This is where RedHat, IBM and others who are profiting from free software have an obligation. It appears to me that they are advertising already, in order to sell products they sell, but this is SUCH a different situation, figuring out a marketing strategy is tricky. What is IBM to do, run TV ads that say "Be different! Use Linux!"? IBM doesn't want to pick a particular 'brand' of Linux to push, to remain neutral about distributors, although they do seem to prefer SuSe and to a lesser degree RedHat.
Coming from a marketing background, I can see how its not that easy. Several companies do push Linux, but that doesn't put anything back into the community by itself. IBM has shown it is willing to put money back into the community, plus hiring free software authors (so it can sell servers) and right now by fighting the big fight with SCO. Because Linux isn't a single product, it will require some thought before anyone could create an advertising campagne for it.
On another note, Im changing from Gibson strings back to Ernie Ball (likely Regular or Super Slinkies). They also make exceptional guitars, the original "Cry Baby" Waa Waa pedal, and tons of other accessories. Eddie Van Halen plays Ernie Ball guitars when he is not endorsing Peavey stuff. You can find them at ernieball.com or buy their stuff from any decent music store or at musiciansfriend.com
You don't need to agree to the GPL to modify GPL software. You only need to agree to the GPL to distribute a version you have modified.
Nothing stops anyone taking a GPLed program, modifying it and using it personally. (Where "personally" applies to any legal "person".)
You are incorrect on this point, but don't worry, many others are as well. Quoting the Preamble to the GPL "To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it."
Quoting the GPL "4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance."
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it."
So technically, you CAN'T modify it if you don't comply with the GPL. You don't have to release your changes to the code up unless you DISTRIBUTE it. You can change it all you want without disclosure as long is it stays inhouse.
Again. "6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License."
The GPL divides your rights this way, Use (no acceptance of the GPL needed) Modify (must accept GPL, do not have to give out source code) Distribute (must accept GPL and must make source reasonably available). This is one of the good things about it, it treats each act as a seperate act, because they ARE seperate acts. The author has the right to limit your ability to modify their work.
You assumption is a common misconceptions, after all, the GPL is pretty unique in this respect. It was the first license designed to protect everyone as a whole as much as the original author. You can read a text version of the GPL here.
So SCO only has the right to USE any GPL software if they don't agree, as long as they do NOT modify it. Since they are saying the GPL is invalid, thus they do not agree with it, they are infringing on the author's copyrighted works if they modify any GPL programs for their own use, unless they have worked out a seperate license with the author(s) of the work they want to modify. Personally, I think this is enforcable, and the FSF have a potential case against SCO for distributing Linux that has been modified. It would be harder to prove they are USING it without a search warrant to see, but I am pretty sure they have modified some of the packages they have on their own FTP site, a clear violation of their license. This is one reason FSF recommends you assign your copyright to them, so a single agency can pursue legal action, instead of relying on several different copyright owners/authors.
yes, that's true... but that code doesn't belong to SCO. It's not AT&T code, it's BSD code, so SCO has no right to it.
Actually, SCO has every legal right to use and distribute it, under the BSD license. They just have no legal basis to prevent others from doing the same. More than likely, they copied this code from BSD, dropped the copyright notice over time (BSD requires you maintain the notice, just like GPL) and now think it is theirs, unaware of its origins.
to short a stock, you have to provide enough capital to cover a gain, ie, about 10%. which means if the stock goes UP 10%, you have to cover your call with more cash, or lose your money. This is why shorting stocks is so risky. If you short a stock at 10, and it keeps going up and up and up, you have to keep cover calling it, and there is no limit to your loses. when you buy a stock at 10 bucks, the most you can lose is 10 bucks. if you short it at 10, and it goes to 100 while you cover it (instead of buying to cover your short) then you lost 90 per share.
Plus commissions. You may be better off looking at options, where the risk is a bit more limited.
But you can't LEGALLY claim that a license is not valid in one instance, and yet claim it is in another. I forget the legal term, but you legally CAN'T do this. It won't past muster. Its not an individual issue at that point, since its exactly the same license, and they are not claiming that the GPL is invalid as it applies to the kernel, they are claimin it is INVALID in all senses. I know some paralegal or lawyer can help me with this one, there is a specific term for why they can't do this, and its been over 10 years since I worked in a law office.
"An SCO presentation shown in Las Vegas"...
:)
Out of the many many years I have been doing this, I have NEVER heard anyone pronouce them "SKOH" as a word. It's SCO, "ess, see, oh". As in short for Santa Cruz Operation (as you stated).
Do you pronouce IBM as "ib-em"? BSD as "bsssd!", AIX as "ayix"? Usually all capital letters makes it clear that it is initials, not a word. Well, I gotta go and read some of the Ganew Gipel (GNU/GPL) license...
I agree with the guy. There are three SCO stories on the front page right now. Do we really need to debate SCO's every (rather predictable) move?
I find it entertaining. Its kind of like WWE Pro Wrestling. Yea, you can tell who is going to win before the real battle starts, and its mainly about the trash talking from IBM and SCO, plus all the paid and unpaid advocates. But I like a couple SCO stories a day. August is a boring month for politics, usually, since congress is on recess, so this works as a nice substitute.
You don't HAVE to read the SCO stories. TheRegister.com has lots of great stories other than SCO, as well. But some of us are hooked on this, like a cheap soap opera. Except it ain't cheap.
See that little bit in Section 4 that says 'the Program'? That means that each GPL license applies to the code it is with, rather than a blanket provision on all GPL software. So SCO has almost certainly violated the Linux kernel GPL license by attempting to sublicense the kernel but that does not remove their rights to distribute Samba 3 under the GPL.
I think the simple point that keeps getting missed is this:
1. You can use GPL software no matter what. No license is needed to use it.
2. If you want to modify or distribute it, you must accept and agree to the GPL since it is copyrighted code.
3. If you flately state that the GPL is invalid or void, then you are implying that you do not agree with it, thus you can't distribute any software under that license. There is nothing else that gives you the authority to distribute it, so you must cease distributing it now. No current customer, no potential customer, no one. If you don't secure a seperate license deal with all the copyright holders, you are violating copyright laws.
This is backed up by SCO's press releases and current law filings. They are flatly saying that they do not agree and accept the GPL, so they give up their rights to distribute any GPL software, period. No matter what else is in the lawsuit, they are infringing on FSF by violating the GPL.
Forget everything else: this is all that matters, they are distributing copyrighted material without a distribution license.
Problem is that your going to need an interviewer who isn't afraid to jump in and interrupt his/her guests to keep SCO from just fillabustering. Even though he can be annoying, I think Bill O'reilly would be great at handling the SCO guys.
I agree. He can be a bit overly populist for my tastes, but he has the ability to nail asses to the wall and make them accountable. His work with the Red Cross problems is a good example. His goal wasn't to point fingers, it was to make changes, and he did. There are few people who could do it as well.
But a judge has already ruled that since running a program copies it from the hard drive to RAM, then running software is making a copy of it. Therefore, using it is the same as copying it. That is why EULA's exist. Because if you don't agree with them, it is illegal to run the software, period.
So, becauase of that boneheaded ruling, if you do not agree to the GPL, you cannot run the software, either. At least, not according to US law.
I am not familiar with that ruling, and would have to say I would disagree with it anyway, but if you have a link to info on it, please send it this way.
I already knew the quote, and I went and downloaded the software, even tho I am not a current or past customer, demonstrating they are distributing it.
this all boils down to how you define distribute. They say they are not distributing because of this disclaimer. I don't think this would hold up in court since anyone CAN get it from the site.
4. If you disagree with the GPL you are not allowed to use the software.
My understanding is that if you disagree, you can't DISTRIBUTE. You don't have to agree to USE it. Even tho SCO says they no longer distribute, or rather they only give access to current customers to keep up their support, anyone can log into ftp.sco.com and download all the GNU software they want.
What about the Simpsons (obligitory) where they talk of a dog that shoots bees from his mouth?
Try reading the actual comment before running your moth. I plainly stated I was honest. I wouldn't work somewhere where I had to lie. My job is to show a product in its best possible light, not to lie.
Do your own dirty work before you buy. As I clearly stated, its not my job to give you 100% of the info on products, thats the salesman's job. My job is to get you to call him.
Try logging in when you comment if you want me to take you serious.
Second, we have no way of knowing from this where these comments originated. We don't know who wrote it, under what license, how it got into either code base and whether it went from one to the other or from some place else into both.
:)
go google it and you will see we DO know where it came from. It is actually public domain now, its code from 1979 (just google the first sentence in quotes) Here is one example. My understanding that the code is also in BSD.
So SCO has demonstrated that Linux has Public Domain code in it, just like SCO. Unless SCO owns the public domain, this code is totally meaningless. The funnier part is how they tried to ROT 255 it with a different font, even tho the code has no IP value whatsoever.
This IS a bogus example of SCO's claim. They can't claim PD from 32V as SCO IP, especially since Caldera already BSD'd 32V, and this code is pre-32V, thus likely PD. (got that?)
I see only one problem with your arguments about the MPAA dinosaur-- at present they seem to have a stranglehold on screens. I don't know enough about how the industry operates or to what extent the MPAA actually owns theatres, but when the only movies the huge megaplexes will play are the ones distributed by the MPAA juggernaut, then moviegoers will never have a choice about what they see.
What you say is true but they do have choices: Don't go at all. This is what many are doing, instead renting dvd's, which makes movie makers less money, or buying dvds used. Or pirating them. Or watching less movies.
To be honest, what keeps most people from pirating movies is there are so few worth downloading for free.
Who the fuck are you? Why the fuck should they show the code to your majesty?
Because they are saying you owe $699 (limited time discount) for each cpu you run linux on, and no court has issued a ruling on the merits of the case. If they had not told every linux user that we must PAY, then I would agree that they don't need to show anything outside of court. But they didn't. So, since they are demanding payment, and are talking of sueing, then they need to put up or shut up. THEY chose to put themselves in a position that other would demand more proof.
Now go crawl back under your bridge you spineless AC troll.
Advertising is the enemy of information and communication. In a world ruled through corporate centralisation, censorship is a logical extension of that fact.
I have spent many years in the marketing biz, and you do have a point. My job is to push the buttons necessary to get customers to buy. Its not my job to give a 100% accurate description of the product so the consumer can decide. This is balanced with the fact that I MUST be factual in how I describe. (really)
This is why colas sell 'image' instead of 'this cola tastes good', for instance. Its called 'selling the sizzle, not the steak', and is pretty much 101 in marketing. If I am selling winter coats, for instance, I don't show you how warm you will be, I show you how good you might look, how others are impressed with your good taste in clothes, and maybe, just maybe, girls will flock to you because you are now so cool. I didn't say anything about how warm it makes you, so if the wind cuts through it like a hot knife through butter, then I have not lied.
BTW, its good to have a healthy disrespect for your own industry (which I do) but it is the CONSUMER'S job to make sure its the right product for them. So yes, a company that makes bad 'coats' doesn't want anyone to know that. The problem is, the MPAA's head is too big for its own good, and they seem to blame the people who bought their product and discovered it sucked and it hasn't lived up to their expectations. The customer is the problem, and their text messaging is clearly interfering with their marketing, so they blame (and virtually lash out) against them. This is the SCO way of doing things.
Personally, I don't worry about it too much. The MPAA seems perfectly capable of shooting themselves in the foot, and as long as they blame the sorry customers for not enjoying the movie, then they are sealing their own fate. Fortunately, movies are a very profitable industry, and I have high hopes that some studios will work to fill the void, so this lull in movie quality won't last forever. Meanwhile, this blame game serves to reduce the influence of the MPAA with the public, creating more resentment. With high bandwidth, faster computers, new software and P2P as strong as ever, they make it more likely that people will steal movies rather than buy them, because they feel no sorrow for anything related to the MPAA.
SCO can't possibly order an injunction against the entire kernel because most (all?) of it isn't copyrighted by them. SCO could probably order an injunction against certain bits of contested code, but it would have to tell what they are in order for that to be granted. And besides, stopping the shipment of a Linux kernel would hurt SCO's FUD-based revenue stream and injure their long-term prospects even more.
The idea that a judge could be numbminded enough to actually order an injunction against the entire 2.4+ tree is almost funny. Hell, it is funny. Considering a huge chunk of the internet currently uses 2.4, even shutting down for long enough to backgrade to a 2.2 kernel....omg, too funny.... not even considering all the firmwear that would have to be upgraded instantly. This goes beyond millions of machines. I seriously doubt you could use your ATM, phones in some places, and certainly not the internet.
"Ok everyone: Effective at midnight, every 2.4 kernel must be shut down. This means every router, server, Tivo or whatever that uses 2.4+ kernels. We hope this doesn't cause an inconvenience."
Yea, what we should do is convince everyone to COMPLY for 24 hours, if this is ordered. And after the townfolk march in with pitchforks and run this judge out on a rail, we can reboot the servers. You might as well have an injunction on driving a car.
The high school that I just graduated from was sponsored by Pepsi. As in, "Montgomery Blair High School, brought to you by Perpsi." No Coca-Cola products were sold anywhere on-campus. The school principal signed a 10-year, $600,000 contract with Pepsi. And you know what? Maybe it was worth it. There are severe budget shortfalls affecting all of us now, and the school really needed that extra money for textbooks and such.
I guess I will have to just chalk this up as "the choice of a new generation"......
[rimshot]
Still no responses to your lawyer request.
;)
:/
No prizes for guessing what that means about usefulness and lawyers
It just means most lawyers won't work for free, even for a 30 second reply
(Pro bono is NOT a bono that has lost his amatuer status!)
So a bunch of unnamed companies are going to fight over some unnamed code? This is all getting too etherial for me.
Don't worry, they will probably settle for an undisclosed amount. (with a non-disclosure clause, of course)
You seem to be confusing innocence with willful ignorance. If you want to own and use a computer, especially one connected to the internet, you have an implied obligation to make sure you know how to use and care for it properly. Just like when you own a car. When your ignorance begins to impact and harm other people, any claim of innocence gets tossed right out.
Great, so YOU go explain to my mom how to. I live 1300 miles away, I get my sister to when possible, and I do when I visit, but shes 67, and has no hope of being L33+. "Obligation" is a bit harsh. We want everyone on the internet (it made it cheaper) and we talk about being inclusive, but they we talk shit about how superior we are and people who get confused about updates should not be on the net.
The problem isn't my mom. The problem is the dickholes who write very bad OS software that must be patched weekly. And no, she wasn't infected. I had been down visiting and updated her.
Why do slashdotters think they are so good at coming up with analogies? You see this in every single article. Someone creates a perfectly fine analogy and 8 people respond saying "actually, it would be more like your neighbor/daughter/lawn gnome..."
:)
Some people just relate differently to unfamiliar analogies because they have a different set of experiences (ie: the analogy may not be meaningful if you have never experienced it before).
I can make an analogy to musicial instruments (I play several), but if you have never played one, it would be meaningless to you, so you have to draw a different analogy, perhaps comparing to snow boarding (which I have no clue on) so its meaningless to me. Someone from from Europe may not be able to understand an analogy about "a 4th of July parade", etc.
Slashdot is full of very different people from different places. Not everyone is fat, nerdy and like the comic book guy in the Simpsons (ok, most, but not me). A large minority are not even from the US. Its not unusual to use very different analogies because we are from such different backgrounds.
Its kind of like how, oh....never mind
Just spell it out. "ess ell a ess aych dee oh tee dot oh are gee."
I did. but saying dot is still confusing. I even tried saying "period". It was still easier to just walk over and type it in her laptop.